Support NeoGAF

[Pattergen]

I think the funniest thing about this thread is that we're arguing with someone who hasn't seen the movie.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Michael Moore didn't like Reagan, he didn't like Bush Sr., he didn't like Clinton at all, and he certainly doesn't like the current President, so no it's not just a case of the guy doesn't like the current government. This guy dislikes America very much, he sees now a ripe opportunity to get the people who actually are only unhappy with the current administration to embrace his message, and like a bunch of jackasses some of them are so filled with vitriol they actually fall for it without even thinking twice.
.

He hates America because he shows them what the majority of the media refuses to show? He couldn't make these movies if the sh!t didn't exist here. It doesn't mean he hates America, it just means he doesn't want to see it the way it is right now.

 

[BuddyC]

 

[CoryCubed]

Bush sucks and everythings his fault. Now you all owe me $8.50

 

[Rlan]

Bush sucks and everythings his fault. Now you all owe me $8.50

Now theres a way to earn $18,334.50 quickly.

 

[sc0la]

Bush sucks and everythings his fault. Now you all owe me $8.50

Maybe if I had laughed at that.

 

[Pattergen]

Wow get over it. The thread isn't at all about my take on this stupid film. It's a much bigger discussion than that. It's about whether liberals actually embrace this guy or will embrace the message of people like him. It's about whether the Democratic party is going to continue to allow people like this take charge of their message. About whether we all can see through to his motives and understand how this type of discourse doesn't help anyone. A similar propoganda smear film about Ralph Nader or John Kerry wouldn't help voters or help America anymore than this film does. Despite all we've given him Michael Moore is not a big fan of America or Americans and that is something that should offend voters across the spectrum.

Get over what? You are commenting on a film that you have not seen yet, and probably will not see for a while. How this type of discourse doesn't help anyone? This IS constructive criticism in its very form. It is a FACT that this administration has bumbled on several issues, and you are saying that it is wrong for Moore to take a look at these issues and provide a slant that maybe some Americans haven't thought about yet. Moore doesn't hate America; he is an activist that discusses some of its downfalls. There ARE downfalls. Bowling for Columbine was manipulative, yes, but it had a clear and central point that was noteworthy. Fahrenheit 911 IS a respectful film, and whether you like it or not it WILL be considered by the American public. Why does that make you so upset? It is pretty tell-tale when one man's (well all of the people involved in production) opinion can raise such controversy. That is what America is about.

 

[sc0la]

Is anyone other than a staunch liberal going to accept this film as a documentary though? And even many liberals as you see here will be honest enough to say it isn't really a documentary. It's perfectly fine that it has a point of view and a bias, but if it's not considered factual by right and left-wingers then it isn't documenting. Michael Moore is considered a huge comedic public figure. His movies are marketed and sold the same way most comedies are sold and a large portion of his material is solely comedic. Calling the film a documentary is like calling the Daily Show a news program. The claim that this film is a "documentary" is specious at best. Not being able to tell the difference between what this comedic propoganda film is and what a documentary is, is like not being able to tell the difference between Orange Juice and Orange Soda. I guess the most dangerous thing is for the misfortunate people who can't tell the difference.

people aren't going to watch more documentaries because they are historically and sometimes critically boring. Generally, unless on is a fan of the genre, one will only view documentaries that cover a source material of a serious interest to them. But that is a whole other topic.

You are right, documentaries are an art form, and like any other art form (any art with merit) the artist is making a statement, their art is often a depiction of the world viewed through their particular lense. Thats what art is about, telling stories, making arguments, being persuasive, being unapalogetic.

A documentary can never be a truly unbiased document (unless it is some bizarre documentary of an event that is shorter than the length of the movie). You cannot fit hundreds of hours of footage, documents, interviews, etc into a two hour movie. That is what learning for yourself is for, that is what being scholarly and studying is for.

Moore's style of documentary is not new, in fact, the "cinima verite" style of documentaries did not begin to emerge until the late 60's. While this style stresses "unbiased realism", you will still be hard pressed to discover a truly unbiased document as someone decides what information should be included in the final cut, what gets left out, what music will play if any how close the frame is cropped, film or digital etc.

Classic, classic examples of the genre take stances- For instance the "Titicut Follies" a documentary that is banned (yes banned 1967-1992) in America. It follows the lives of mental "health" asylum patients and their doctors treating them. One scene involves footage of a patient being force-fed through a tube, while being spliced and jumping back and fourth to the embalming of that same patient later after their death. The two events obviously did not coincide. Though they were every bit factual. Whether or not you agree with his point is still entirely up to you.

 

[DaMan121]

Wow get over it. The thread isn't at all about my take on this stupid film. It's a much bigger discussion than that. It's about whether liberals actually embrace this guy or will embrace the message of people like him. It's about whether the Democratic party is going to continue to allow people like this take charge of their message. About whether we all can see through to his motives and understand how this type of discourse doesn't help anyone. A similar propoganda smear film about Ralph Nader or John Kerry wouldn't help voters or help America anymore than this film does. Despite all we've given him Michael Moore is not a big fan of America or Americans and that is something that should offend voters across the spectrum.

Wow, one liberal (and suspect one at that) doesnt like the film, and now all of a sudden the Democratic party is faced with a "decision" (like its up to them anyway) whether to let Moore speak for them. The fact is, he isnt. If Al Gore has ties with the House of Saude, the Bin Ladens, had an administartion with ties to contracting companies who are making a killing (no pun intended) out of their nasty little proxy wars, lied to the public about why the went to war, had one of the worst(perhaps worst concidering our technology today) lapses of security in the entire histroy of the US...etc etc, Moore would have made the exact same movie. Infact he has a go at all the Democratic congressmen who just let Bush and Co have carte blanche over everything.
A similar propaganda smear film about nadar or Kerry wont work, because simply, all this shit didnt happen on their watch. Micheal Moore isnt a big fan of American government(s), and given their histroy who the fuck is? Reagan, Bush Snr, Clinton (even him), and now Bush Jnr, abused the crap out of the presidency for their own personal gain, ego, insanity whatever. As far as Americans are concerned,I assume he doesnt particularly like the ones who swallow up all this propaganda like sheep, again, who the fuck does?

 

[----]

If Al Gore has ties with the House of Saude, the Bin Ladens, had an administartion with ties to contracting companies who are making a killing (no pun intended) out of their nasty little proxy wars, lied to the public about why the went to war, had one of the worst(perhaps worst concidering our technology today) lapses of security in the entire histroy of the US...etc etc,

Do you really believe that stuff to be true regarding George Bush? And if you do, what are the blank spaces you're filling in with relation to the events of 911 and the Iraq war? It's interesting you throw out these attacks and claims, but don't really say what it is that you're implying. It sounds like this so correct me if I'm wrong... Do you really believe that the Saudi's, Bin Laden, and George W. Bush all were working together somehow to plan 911? Do you think sensible healthy people really buy into these type of ridiculous conspiracy theories?

Micheal Moore isnt a big fan of American government(s), and given their histroy who the fuck is?

Most of the free world I would guess.

Scola,

Right what keeps it from being a genuine documentary isn't that it's biased, it's that the films are untruthful. And yeah I know that Michael Moore didn't create the style of film and it's a throwback. If for nothing else he's noteworthy because he's the best at it of our time. Although I think it's morals that keep most directors from resorting to this style, rather than the art form being hard to master. And we see here people are willing to acknowledge and accept Moore's work as manipulative. Well yeah, propoganda is manipulative, propoganda can have a clear and central point, so we're not in disagreement at all. Feel free to take note of this film, if you do just understand what you're looking at. You're not looking at a documentary.

He hates America because he shows them what the majority of the media refuses to show? He couldn't make these movies if the sh!t didn't exist here. It doesn't mean he hates America, it just means he doesn't want to see it the way it is right now.

SolidSnake, the guy heavily edits his films. Leaving out details, splicing together incongruous segments, he creates a deeply misguided thesis. He makes up and provides false facts in the information that he gives for the sake of comedy rather than credibility.

spe·cious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spshs)
adj.
1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.
2. Deceptively attractive.

And it isn't "right now" that he isn't happy. It's always. He wants America to be something that it will never be like. He wants it to be something that no Democrat or Republican President will ever want America to be like. And as long as he doesn't get the America that he wants he's going to continue to undermine it, use it, take advantage of the dopey Americans that are willing to pay him, then run off to Canada and France and bad mouth America and Americans. His films have never stopped at just criticizing the government. Up until now his films have mostly focused on criticizing the private sector, looking down at the foolish every day Americans, and our vile society.

This is a guy who would prefer to live in Canada, Michael hates his American neighbors. That to me is a frightening partner for either wing of the political spectrum to embrace. There is no defense for calling American's dumb, there is no defense for calling victims of terror cowards, there is no defense for fighting against the war in Afghanistan, and there is certainly no reasonable person in this country who believes that our President is responsible for the evil acts of terror that we have had to face. Whether you agree with the reasons for war or not there is no reasonable person who can completely ignore the good our involevment in Iraq has done for the generations of Iraqi people who will no longer have to live under a vicious tyrant. If you can not be honest and admit that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in power then you are not seeing the world clearly. That doesn't mean you have to love the Bush administration or the way that they went about achieving these goals. If after all the horrible, unspeakable things that have happened over the last 4 years the only person you can find to face your anger towards is George W. Bush then something is wrong with you, not this country.

Get over what? You are commenting on a film that you have not seen yet, and probably will not see for a while.

I didn't write the articles blasting the film and Michael Moore. Why am I not allowed to comment about the detailed descriptions I've read and about Michael Moore's other works of fiction?

it WILL be considered by the American public. Why does that make you so upset? It is pretty tell-tale when one man's (well all of the people involved in production) opinion can raise such controversy. That is what America is about.

It would upset me very much if the left wing of this country was so desperate to gain control of the Senate, House, or Presidency that they would be willing to embrace the message of a vitriolic America basher like Michael Moore. It is pretty tell tale. It's pretty frightening that the discourse in this country has gotten so ugly that hatred spewing people like Al Franken, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Moveon have risen to such prominence. It was not like this 4 years ago. The only reason why there are more offending Dems than Republicans is because the Democrats have lost control of the House, the Senate, and the Whitehouse. Many Democrats are frustrated and the more frustrated they become the more childish they are willing to become. Remember when Al Gore was trying to be a statesman and not trying his hardest to immitate Howard Deans manic style? Just because it's an election year we throw all civility out the window? I don't think that's right. I don't think that's to our countries benefit.

I think the attacks like those of Michael Moore and the conspiracy theorists are going to get shutdown by the American people the same way Howard Dean got shutdown. If the Democrats embrace this they're going to continue to lose badly. The American public is going to be disgusted by this behavior.

 

[Triumph]

Moore is a bigger patriot than Bush, Clinton or you Mr. ---- will ever be. Why? Because he believes in the principles of the United States Constitution, and our representative Government. He believes that Government should be held accountable when it does things that are not in the best interest of it's people. And I hardly think that going into Iraq and stirring a proverbial hornet's nest is in our best interest.

So is that hating America? Doesn't seem like it to me. Seems like he loves America and wants it to do better for itself. Seems to me that he wants to see America controlled by the people, not the neo-con Chickenhawks and multi-national corporations. Seems to me you have an agenda an axe to grind by trying to intimate that a man who is critical of his government and society HATES AMERICA.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Most of the free world I would guess.

Most of the world right now seems to have a great deal of hatred toward the US government and especially Bush at this moment.

 

[maharg]

To put it another way, if he were to go on a diet and excercise more, would that indicate self-hatred? Maybe it could, but it's equally likely he just hates his fat.

 

[----]

Solid,
The question was, given the history of American governments, who is a big fan of America? Obviously that's a silly statement. I think there are quite a few foreign countries who are thankful for America. That's probably the understatement of the century.

 

[Triumph]

Solid,
The question was, given the history of American governments, who is a big fan of America? Obviously that's a silly statement. I think there are quite a few foreign countries who are thankful for America. That's probably the understatement of the century.

Yeah, Israel for one.

 

[Pattergen]

Yeah, Israel for one.

Sittin' pretty on their arsenal of nukes.
...

Nah... Probably has nothing to do with it...

 

[ShadowRed]

"Do you really believe that stuff to be true regarding George Bush? And if you do, what are the blank spaces you're filling in with relation to the events of 911 and the Iraq war? It's interesting you throw out these attacks and claims, but don't really say what it is that you're implying. It sounds like this so correct me if I'm wrong... Do you really believe that the Saudi's, Bin Laden, and George W. Bush all were working together somehow to plan 911? Do you think sensible healthy people really buy into these type of ridiculous conspiracy theories?"



Moore and to my knowledge, I didn't read the entire thread, has never claimed that Bush and the Saudis had anything directly related to 911. What he did point out is that these people and the Bushes are closer than a fly on shit and that they have had dealings with Bush Jr and his family since forever, going so far as to bail him out time and time again when he ran several business into the ground. The Bushes and Bush Jr have received millions from the Saudis over the years, and Bush Jr is regarded as a member of the fucking family. Moore suggest and I believe rightly that because of this Bushes judgment may be compromised when dealing with them, and that they have a backdoor access to him that is inappropriate, and which led him to allow the Bin Laden's fly out of the country without being thoroughly investigated. As well as completely blow off the fact that the majority of the hijackers of the 911 planes, 15 of the 19 I believe, where Saudi citizens, and that they were funded by money that came from Saudi Arabia.



I just saw the movie and I was expecting a complete hack job, just a vitriolic diatribe of anti-Bush rhetoric, with little to no facts, but after seeing it I have to say from what I know everything he claimed is true, just edited for a bigger impact. Why don't from now on people who have a problem with the movie, pick a claim Moore has made and refute it, instead of this circle jerk of "Moore hates America no he loves it." That way we might at least separate those that know something from those that are supporting him or condemning him because he supports or bashes what they want him to bash.

 

[----]

Why hate Israel? They're like one of the only free democracies in that region? They're an ally, let's take all the free civilized nations we can get as allies in that tumultous region of the world. Any way we can foster democracy in that region of the world is going to be for the benefit of all free people. If a free nation like Isreal was crushed in that region of the world it would be terrible for us all.

It's pretty sad you think Israel is the only nation that appreciates what America has done for the world. Can you really be this removed from reality?

Moore is a bigger patriot than Bush, Clinton or you Mr. ---- will ever be. Why? Because he believes in the principles of the United States Constitution, and our representative Government. He believes that Government should be held accountable when it does things that are not in the best interest of it's people. And I hardly think that going into Iraq and stirring a proverbial hornet's nest is in our best interest.

LOL And who is it that determines what is in the best interest of the people? That's such a vague concept. I disagree completely that our involvement in Iraq is not only in the best interest of America, it's in the best interest of Iraq, and the rest of the free world. The only ones that a free Iraq hurts are terrorists and dictators. Iraq becoming a free sovereign nation isn't going to hurt you or me.

And who holds more respect for Michael Moore than Presidents or former Presidents of the United States? Some of you guys are really wacky. You're not even close to being in touch with a normal American.

But getting back to the point...

So is that hating America? Doesn't seem like it to me. Seems like he loves America and wants it to do better for itself. Seems to me that he wants to see America controlled by the people, not the neo-con Chickenhawks and multi-national corporations. Seems to me you have an agenda an axe to grind by trying to intimate that a man who is critical of his government and society HATES AMERICA.

I think he hates America not just because he criticizes our government. He hates America because of the way he portrays Americans and because of what he says about America when he is overseas and in Canada. There's no excuse for the type of things he's said. I've noticed that nobody here even tries to defend them. Though they will vaguely stand up for the guy and his films, they won't defend the things that come out of his mouth.

What the hell is neo-con chickenhawk? Sounds tasty. Is that like a new KFC recipe? Jesus. A country run by people instead of government and corporations isn't America, it's not even a country that could realistically work. This isn't a socialist society where we can divy up everything evenly as Moore wants. He wants America to be what it is not and what it will never be and he is willing to do whatever is necessary to convince people that his way is better even if he has to lie. He's not a Kerry supporter, he's not a Bush supporter, and if in some sick bizare universe crazy ol' Ralph Nader was in power he probably wouldn't even think he went far enough.

 

[Jak140]

Honestly, I don't give a fuck about what Micheal Moore thinks about America. The issue that actually matters is being ignored. A war against Iraq was started by the current U.S. administration upon pretenses that were tepid at best and flat-out lies at worse. What I don't understand is how certain people can continue to support this administration in the face of that cold hard fact. The simple truth is that they can't, so instead they go after Micheal Moore.

 

[Triumph]

Honestly, I don't give a fuck about what Micheal Moore thinks about America. The issue that actually matters is being ignored. A war against Iraq was started by the current U.S. administration upon pretenses that were tepid at best and flat-out lies at worse. What I don't understand is how certain people can continue to support this administration in the face of that cold hard fact. The simple truth is that they can't, so instead they go after Micheal Moore.

Yeah, it's called character assassination, or shooting the messenger. They can't refute the message, so I guess they just have to call him a fat, America hating atheist that will burn in hell.

How long, O Lord, how long will these criminal bastards be given the keys to the treasury and the luxury to shit on our Constitution? Their time is coming and soon, but will it be soon enough?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Honestly, I don't give a fuck about what Micheal Moore thinks about America. The issue that actually matters is being ignored. A war against Iraq was started by the current U.S. administration upon pretenses that were tepid at best and flat-out lies at worse. What I don't understand is how certain people can continue to support this administration in the face of that cold hard fact. The simple truth is that they can't, so instead they go after Micheal Moore.

Well one thing they went over there for was actually true (getting rid of Saddam because of what he'd done to his people). Ofcourse they lied about 3 other things. WMD's? No. Nuclear programs? No again. Connections to Al Queda? Nope. So they went 1 for 4.

 

[Late Stage Marxist]

All these smear articles fail to recognize the cultural implications of the success of this film.

 

[DaMan121]

ShadowRed pretty much covered my response re the connections, but on this:

Why hate Israel? They're like one of the only free democracies in that region? They're an ally, let's take all the free civilized nations we can get as allies in that tumultous region of the world. Any way we can foster democracy in that region of the world is going to be for the benefit of all free people. If a free nation like Isreal was crushed in that region of the world it would be terrible for us all.

It's pretty sad you think Israel is the only nation that appreciates what America has done for the world. Can you really be this removed from reality?

You might want to read these (which unfortunatly wasnt included in the movie):

from iidb.org forums
One thing he didn't cover (and which didn't really fit into his anti-Bush theme, but may be relevant to understanding 9/11) is the role of Israeli intelligence which was monitoring the 9/11 terrorists (and in fact Israel gave a list of names of likely terrorists to the U.S. in August 2001 which included four of the 9/11 hijackers). There were about 200 Israeli intelligence agents posing as art students and trying to gain access to U.S. government offices or the homes of U.S. government officials in the months prior to 9/11, and five Israeli intelligence agents were spotted videotaping the WTC attack and then high-fiving each other later at Liberty State Park, where they were arrested. They ended up being deported in November 2001, without having given a full account of what they were up to. This is covered in a new book from Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com, and some of the background can be found at these URLs:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/C...03/0803CIA.html
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/...ishwrapper.html
http://www.ncix.gov/news/2001/mar01.html#a1
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WA...1_airports.html
http://www.antiwar.com/israelfiles2.html
http://cryptome.org/dea-il-spy.htm

 

[----]

The evolution of Michael Moore's new film is fascinating to watch. After winning an award at the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Moore returned triumphantly to Hollywood and made this statement to reporters on June 9th:

"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."

"Them" were critics who were questioning the accuracy of Moore's charges against the Bush administration. "Truth" is rock solid information which, apparently, Michael Moore was sure he possessed.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the Metroplex. The Nine Eleven Commission findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the USA while everybody else was grounded. Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the Commissioners, none of whom were jurors at the Cannes Film Festival.

So by June 20, Michael Moore had "evolved" a bit as many in Hollywood tend to do. He said this on an ABC News program: "(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

No mention of truth this time but, as responsible columnists know, all op-ed pieces are supposed to be grounded in truth and facts should be cited in backing up one's op-ed opinion.

Uh-oh.

But just when Michael Moore was foundering in a sea of skepticism, New York Times critic A.O. Scott came to the rescue with this assessment Moore's film: "It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."

Paging Shrek! In the space of two weeks the Moore movie had gone from truth to opinion to cartoon, albeit an editorial one.

But the hits just keep on coming. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan wrote this about Fahrenheit 9/11: "It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "

So we're back to the truth now garnished with "elements."

I have seen the first half of Michael Moore's movie and here's the deal. It's slick propaganda that indicts President Bush for a variety of things using cut and paste video interspersed with the opinions of far left people like Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers. For me, the first sixty minutes were tedious but I have to interview guys like that everyday so I'm jaded.

Any skilled filmmaker, and Moore is that, could fashion a movie making any American look like a pinhead. That's easy to do. Just get a bunch of video, some people who hate the guy, some factoids that may or may not be true, heat it up with sardonic rhetoric and serve. Presto, Fahrenheit 9/11.

So let's stop with the nonsense. If you want to pay 9 bucks to see Moore carve up the President, knock yourself out. But don't be calling me up telling me about truth, or elements thereof. This is rank propaganda and the American public is welcome to it. It will not evolve any further.

Well you wanted specific examples of lies. How about that? The 911 commission found those accusations of ties to the Saudis and letting the Bin Ladens out to be false. Yet here are how many of you accepting it as truth because you saw it in a movie theater? Moore seems pretty embarassed by the turn of events since he won't do any interviews with people that will mention this fact to him.

So what do you have to say about that? And how about Moore's stance that anyone in the media who questions the veracity of the film will be sued for libel? Does this yet give you a glimpse into the psyche of the man you are dealing with here?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Well you wanted specific examples of lies. How about that? The 911 commission found those accusations of ties to the Saudis and letting the Bin Ladens out to be false. Yet here are how many of you accepting it as truth because you saw it in a movie theater? Moore seems pretty embarassed by the turn of events since he won't do any interviews with people that will mention this fact to him.

Funny that he did 2 interviews for NBC where that was brought up and he did a pretty good job of defending it.

 

[ShadowRed]

Well one thing they went over there for was actually true (getting rid of Saddam because of what he'd done to his people). Ofcourse they lied about 3 other things. WMD's? No. Nuclear programs? No again. Connections to Al Queda? Nope. So they went 1 for 4.

Bullshit, what Saddam did to his people was not even on their fucking minds. If that were the case then there are like 10 other heads of state that are way ahead of Saddam in what they are doing to their people. I hear conservatives screaming that Saddams treatment of his people was reason enough to invade, yet the reason Bush never floated this idea alone was because no one would have went for it because of the afore mentioned 10 other dictators that are raping, grinding and wholesale murdering their people. The entire run up to the war was WMD, he's got WMDs, and then they would mutter oh yeah he's an asshole. Colin Powell went to the UN with photos of alleged WMDs facilities, not once did he show a picture of the Kurds getting gassed or Saddam pulling the chair out from under someone, yet after the war and no WMDs found all they can get out of their mouths are he was a bad guy, the WMDs didn't matter.

 

[----]

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

So you guys who saw the film... How do you feel about this?

Funny that he did 2 interviews for NBC where that was brought up and he did a pretty good job of defending it.

So you believe Michael Moore's wild allegations over the 911 commission's findings? Is that what you're saying?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Shadow, i'm not defending Bush at all. Just saying that they actually threw enough things at the wall for 1 of them to stick. It's obvious that Saddams treatment of his people was more of something of a crutch for them if every (which they did) fell through. I find it incredibly disturbing that right now thousands of people are dying over speculation. As Moore has said, war should be a last resort and we should know for sure that the reasons we're going are factual. And we no now that none of the "real" reasons we're fighting over there are factual.

 

[ShadowRed]

"Well you wanted specific examples of lies. How about that? The 911 commission found those accusations of ties to the Saudis and letting the Bin Ladens out to be false. Yet here are how many of you accepting it as truth because you saw it in a movie theater? Moore seems pretty embarassed by the turn of events since he won't do any interviews with people that will mention this fact to him.

So what do you have to say about that? And how about Moore's stance that anyone in the media who questions the veracity of the film will be sued for libel? Does this yet give you a glimpse into the psyche of the man you are dealing with here?"




WTF so the Bin Laden family wasn't picked up and rushed out of the country? I will admit that the movie made it seem as if this happened when all the planes were grounded, but as it came out this week they flew out after air travel had been allowed. The fact still remains that family members of the guy who just killed 3000 people were allowed to leave the country without a though investigation. I'm aware that they were spoken too by the FBI, but you can't tell me that between the date of the attacks, the 11th and the date they were flown out of the country 13th that the FBI had tracked all of there comings and goings and knew for a fact that none of them where in cahoots with Osama. Lets just say hypnotically that the US knew that Saddam was actually the mastermind behind 911, do you think they would allow anyone of his family members, ambassadors, cleaning ladies to leave the country, much less leave without a though investigation.

 

[----]

ShadowRed the funny thing about the conspiracy theories is you flip flop between accusing Bush of either being incompetent or masterminding everything. Which is the conspiracy theory? Is it that the Bin Ladens were let go because Bush was working with the Saudis or is it that the Bush adminstration is so incompetent that they just let them go by accident? And that the comission finds these decisions had nothing to do with the President, doesn't that affect the thesis of the film significantly?

Shadow, i'm not defending Bush at all. Just saying that they actually threw enough things at the wall for 1 of them to stick. It's obvious that Saddams treatment of his people was more of something of a crutch for them if every (which they did) fell through. I find it incredibly disturbing that right now thousands of people are dying over speculation. As Moore has said, war should be a last resort and we should know for sure that the reasons we're going are factual. And we no now that none of the "real" reasons we're fighting over there are factual.

You are painful to read. Dying over speculation? What they're dying for is more good than you'll ever bring to the world. Saddam was a sadisticallly evil and psychotic dictator who was playing the UN endlessly in a cat and mouse game. There was no other solution than war. He violated every human rights and peace treaty agreement we had with him after we WON the Gulf War. With the pleasure of hindsight the biggest mistake George Bush Sr. made during his entire Presidency was not raising taxes it was leaving Saddam in power. That the Bush administration wanted Saddam Hussein out of power is supposed to be some kind of condemnation??? The way Bill Clinton handled Iraq was a disgrace. Bush Sr. screwed up royally, but Bill Clinton let Iraq spit in our faces for 8 years. The timing of how we dealt with Iraq was terrible. Iraq should have been dealt with properly long before september 11th ever happened. Who doesn't realize this now?


More specific examples of lies:

Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

 

[Triumph]

Well, instead of playing your partisan game and posting the dozens and dozens of positive reviews of the movie Mr. ----, I'm going to be FAIR AND BALANCED. Here is an honest look at Moore and his movie.

http://www.sundayherald.com/42891

MICHAEL Moore is a genius, a liar, a truth-teller, a propagandist, a bully, a democracy-loving hero. He’s a money-worshipping scumbag who distorts the facts to suit his twisted political agenda, he’s a cinematic genius with the populist touch. Michael Moore is all of these things; he is none of them. Take your pick. But there is one thing no-one can deny: with Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore has a made a landmark film. It is funny, provocative and touching. It is political dynamite. But don’t take my word, the word of a mere layman, for this. Here is what the cream of America’s film critics are saying: “Scorching; the best film Moore has made so far. A powerful and passionate expression of outraged patriotism” (New York Times); “A cultural juggernaut” (Washington Post); “Uncompromising … this landmark of American political film making demands to be seen” (Los Angles Times)

Hmm... here's something a lot of people seem to be forgetting. This film won the Palme d'Or! Oh my God, is that a prestidgious AWARD for this horrible film? What are these people thinking?

Thanks to Moore’s recent triumph in Cannes, where he won the Palme d’Or for best film, and a spurious “row” over the suggestion that the Disney Corporation, which originally backed the project, had withdrawn its support in an attempt to censor the director (as if anyone could), there can be few people out there who haven’t heard of Fahrenheit 9/11. But for anyone just back from Venus, here is a brief synopsis. It’s about President George W Bush, and the reasons for and consequences of his decision to go to war in Iraq in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Hot damn.

You could, as the writer and journalist Christopher Hitchens did last week in a widely noted column for Slate magazine, deconstruct all of this, pointing out the contradictions, the manipulative juxtapositions and crude rabble-rousing. Or you could, like the crowd inside the Marin County cinema, cheer every assertion Moore makes as if it is the closing note of a number one hit single. Challenged to stand up his more outrageous claims, the director says simply that his film should be viewed as an impressionist painting, not a figurative work of art.

Eventually, however, polemic does give way to reportage and it is here that Fahrenheit 9/11 is at its most powerful. While he was making the film, Moore came across Lila Lipscomb, a middle-aged mother with two children who had served in the armed forces and who tells him she’d always hated anti-war protesters.

Unbelievably, one of Lipscomb’s sons, Michael Pedersen, was killed in Iraq in a helicopter crash during filming. Moore follows Lipscomb to Washington DC, where she is confronted by a woman who screams at the pair of them that “this is all staged”. The grieving mother responds first with disbelief and then by falling to the street outside the White House, wailing for her dead son. It is a more powerful anti-war statement than Moore could ever have hoped to make on his own and, as a film-maker, he can be forgiven for thanking God for the day he met Lila Lipscomb.

 

[----]

Raoul Duke, are you trying to say that making up lies is okay if you take advantage of and exploit a woman who's son died in combat? What are you trying to say?

If people cheer and the French give the film an award, that means it's factual? Most normal people accept that the award given to the film was politically inspired. Even if you found the film amusing you have to admit that the French are going to praise any attack like this on Bush or America without regards to whether the material presented was truthful or not.

Doesn't it bother you as a viewer that the material is untruthful and the major thesis of the movie was proven false weeks before the release of the film? Bush played golf and did business with the Saudis so he's responsible for a solider dying, for everything Bin Laden has done and for this "horrible" war which is ending up bringing freedom to generations and generations of Iraqis.

Michael Moore can make statements in the movie such as Iraq has never threatened a single American and that is fine with you?

If anything giving an award to a film found to be this flagrantly false takes away from the prestige of the award itself. Not that most Americans really gave a crap about this award to begin with.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

With what appears to be the new highest grossing documentary on his hands, dethroning his own Bowling for Columbine, I'm sure Michael Moore really gives a shit.

He is making the documentary thing HOT again everyone wants in

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/the_corporation.html

 

[SolidSnakex]

"Raoul Duke, are you trying to say that making up lies is okay if you take advantage of and exploit a woman who's son died in combat? What are you trying to say?"

Why would that be ok? Although it does seem ok to some that our own government has lied to get a war against a country. That's the bigger problem. This is one of the main points Moore is trying to make, and it's also the point that people who're bashing the movie are trying to look over.

"If people cheer and the French give the film an award, that means it's factual? "

Only 1 person on the Palme d’Or panel was French (Emmanuelle Béart).

 

[deadhorse32]

If people cheer and the French give the film an award, that means it's factual? Most normal people accept that the award given to the film was politically inspired. Even if you found the film amusing you have to admit that the French are going to praise any attack like this on Bush or America without regards to whether the material presented was truthful or not.

Cannes film festival jury is made of International professional ( 9 peoples IIRC ). This year it contained 1 french member and 3 US one ( Quentin TARANTINO was the president of the jury ).

Hence your argument about French giving him an award is not factual

EDIT : DAMN YOU SSX

 

[----]

Cannes film festival jury is made of International professional ( 9 peoples IIRC ). This year it contained 1 french member and 3 US one ( Quentin TARANTINO was the president of the jury ).

Hence your argument about French giving him an award is not factual

Oh Jesus. The award was given out in France and it was politically motivated. So much so that each jury member for first time in history had to give out their reasons for why the award was given. Even big ass lib Roger Ebert admits that the film won for simply political reasons and that the same type of film with the opposite political slant would not have won. This is coming from a dumb ass lib that loved the movie and everything that it stands for. I didn't say the jury was French, I said he got the award for political reasons. The point is that Quentin Tarantino being a Bush hating liberal from Hollywood giving this movie a thumbs up doesn't prove that the film is factual. Who cares if it got an award, if the truth comes out about the film that it was filled with lies and mistakes, then the award is a piece of shit. You care more about the film winning a dopey award in France than you do about the actual veracity of the film? Give me a break.

Although it does seem ok to some that our own government has lied to get a war against a country. That's the bigger problem.

How is it a lie that Iraq violated the peace agreements we had with them? That's the only justification we needed to go to war. The war was long overdue.

Isn't it just as stupid and irresponsible for you to claim that the government lied to force a war as it was for Moore to claim that Bush let the Bin Laden's leave the country because of his family ties to the Saudis? You have no more access to the truth of the matter than Moore did when he made that thesis. Time proved him wrong. It seems to be foolish and irresponsible for a person in your position to claim to know whether someone lied or what

For me the bigger problem is people like you and Michael Moore, people who are willing to jump to conclusions based upon a lack of information that is supported by nothing more than your own underlying dislike and distrust for America. You could just as easily be made the fool as Michael Moore was, but you're perfectly content in the meantime to slander the people you don't like regardless of what the truth really is. It's sad I have to ask you, but when you talk about the "bigger problem," what do you really think is the bigger problem Saddam Hussein or George Bush? We know what this film maker thinks and most Americans would find it insane.

This is one of the main points Moore is trying to make, and it's also the point that people who're bashing the movie are trying to look over.

These people aren't just mindlessly bashing the movie. They're pointing out HUGE factual errors in it. They're pointing out the absurdity of some of the sequences and jumping conclusions. They're pointing out how insane and dangerous some of Michael Moore's beliefs are.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

It's pretty obvious Michael Moore is just an extreme pacifist. Every time we have a President who goes to war or takes strong militaristic action he's going to protest wildly and irrationally.

Being that I want the President to get re-elected by a wide margin it would be nice if this pacifist kept in mind of the voters the defense policies and voting record of John Kerry. This movie helps to keep National Security as an issue on the minds of voters. This is a subject John Kerry desperately wants to shy away from, an issue where George Bush leads him by double digit percentage points. If this was the battleground issue it would be a 1st round knock out for the Republicans.

 

[SolidSnakex]

"For me the bigger problem is people like you and Michael Moore, people who are willing to jump to conclusions based upon a lack of information that is supported by nothing more than your own underlying dislike and distrust for America."

Show me some WMD's and some Nuclear weapons facilities. That's the reason the public was given for us going to war with Iraq, right? Where are they? How are people jumping to conclusions on this issue when it's been proven that there aren't any? Fact is they either lied or didn't have enough proof to actually go to war. We haven't found anything there, before the war even started the inspectors couldn't find any sign of WMD's, and yet we still went to war. This has nothing to do with your comment on "dislike" of America (which is getting to be a highly annoying thing that people just throw around whenever someone doesn't back every single thing America does), this has to do with facts as you like to call them.

 

[deadhorse32]

I hope this documentary made it to the US http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/postcard_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000542361

It was made before F911 and makes the same points but since it was made by a french it probably never make it out in the US

edit : and before anyone despise this movie because it's a French-French movie every intervening party is AMERICAN.

 

[jiggle]

You are painful to read. Dying over speculation? What they're dying for is more good than you'll ever bring to the world. Saddam was a sadisticallly evil and psychotic dictator who was playing the UN endlessly in a cat and mouse game. There was no other solution than war.

Will you enlist? Will you enlist your kids?
It's not too late to help.

 

[Catchpenny]

Damnit Jiggle, don't you understand? He'd love to serve his country in Iraq, but he has been given the much more arduous task of posting against the enemy at home, the EEEEEVIL LIBRULS.

 

[deadhorse32]

and to "put to rest" this thread

REASON * November 2001

Free Radical
Journalist Christopher Hitchens explains why he’s no longer a socialist, why moral authoritarianism is on the rise, and what's wrong with anti-globalization protestors.

http://reason.com/0111/fe.rs.free.shtml

The guy is not a lib./soc. anymore since 2000/2001 so the premise of this thread is wrong.

CLOSE THE THREAD IT'S OVER

 

[Mandark]

milhouse nailed it. Hitchens is solidly on the neocon democracy-through-bombing bandwagon, and has been for a few years now. This is as surprising as Jonah Goldberg bashing Moore.

This movie helps to keep National Security as an issue on the minds of voters. This is a subject John Kerry desperately wants to shy away from, an issue where George Bush leads him by double digit percentage points. If this was the battleground issue it would be a 1st round knock out for the Republicans.

And you complain about other people not checking their facts?

 

[Alcibiades]

that's one poll only, and one of the VERY FEW that would show John Kerry leading on that issue..

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush Kerry Fundamentals.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123679,00.html

 

[Vibri]

To ----, you have been completely and utterly owned, and I have a feeling you know it. Please give it a rest.

 

[Mustang]

Michael Moore is a genius.

He is a good film splicer.

 

[mjq jazz bar]

----- won't give it up. He also felt it necessary to write 100 pages worth of posts defending Tommy Tallarico.

 

[sprsk]

----- won't give it up. He also felt it necessary to write 100 pages worth of posts defending Tommy Tallarico.

woah woah woah.

what?

 

[mjq jazz bar]

http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=863

 

[Forsete]

This movie is great, everyone go see it.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

Michael Moore: "[GAFers] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks."

Much better.