I just saw Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight. This movie has been selling out here in Lincoln all weekend so far. (I've also heard that it's number one at the box office, which is unprecedented for a documentary film.) For the most part, it just reinforced everything I already suspected about the Bush administration, yet it also accused the Bush family of having questionable business ties to the Saudi royal family and the Bin Ladins, which I found very interesting. I felt that this film was very well made and that Michael Moore is indeed a talented filmmaker, and there were quite a few scenes that genuinely moved me. However there were a couple of things that really p*ssed me off. There was a scene where they showed footage of Baghdad just before the invasion, where Iraqi children were running around, laughing and playing and flying kites; and a sidewalk cafe where people were smiling and relaxing. It portrayed pre-war Baghdad as being this happy fun place. Where was the footage of the dead Kurds that were massacred in Saddam's chemical attack, or Uday and Qusay's infamous wood chipper, or Saddam's torture chambers, or the mass graves that our troops have recently uncovered? The film also poked fun at the "coalition of the willing," naming small countries like Iceland, Morocco, and the Netherlands but omitting key, more powerful allies like Great Britain, Japan, Australia and South Korea.
      The audience was obviously mostly left-leaning, and I thought a lot of their laughter was just from knee-jerk reactions. (One guy wasn't, and he was very upset after the movie ended, yelling, "THIS IS BULLSH*T!" and he actually came close to getting into a physical altercation outside the theater.) What was really ironic was that in one montage, Moore was poking fun at Bush's extended vacation during the summer of 2001, showing him golfing and fishing and hiking around his ranch, but that just gave me the impressiion that George W. would actually be kind of a fun guy to hang out with.  But when they showed sound bites of Bush speaking at formal dinners for his backers and other conferences, it made my blood boil. ("There are the haves, and then there are the have-mores. I call you my backers.") There was one scene where a bunch of corporations had convened to discuss the potential windfall of the war, and one man said, "Well, this war is good and bad...It's bad that people are going to die but it'll be good for business." Perhaps the most important thing about this film was that it illustrated the true nature of this war by showing graphic war footage and scenes of veterans with missing limbs that you NEVER see anywhere in the mainstream press. Regardless of one's political affiliation, people really need to see this movie, if for no other reason, than to see for themselves the human cost and suffering this war has really caused. And for what??? Go see this film, I highly recommend it. (Just make sure your B.S. filter is turned on.)

Gonna see it today.  Can't comment 'till then.  My B.S. filter is always turned on, whether it's Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore.

Reminds me of a Rocky movie..it builds you up where you feel like you could beat up the world then you realize it hooked you.

Yes, there are stories no one seen before and would outrage those not in the know..I DO know he killed a lot of his people and there are many citizens that lost body parts...Where's the interviews with these people???

Some DOCUMENTARY. :P

Reminds me of a Rocky movie..it builds you up where you feel like you could beat up the world then you realize it hooked you.

Yes, there are stories no one seen before and would outrage those not in the know..I DO know he killed a lot of his people and there are many citizens that lost body parts...Where's the interviews with these people???

Some DOCUMENTARY. :P


Haven't seen it yet, but lets not get "holier than thou" about brutal dictators.  We oppose the ones who oppose our policies or threaten our interests and support those we consider friendly to those policies and interests regardless of how many of their own people the kill.  And we conspire to overthrow democracies that challenge our policies and interests no matter how much they are committed to improving the lives of their citizens.  We need to understand that our foreign policy has NEVER, since 1789 (the ratification of the Constitutuion) be based on a projection of the democratic values (such as they are) embodied in that document but on whatever leader happens to be in power's view of "the national interest".  This is called "real politique" and in MHO, it does us no good service - I could use stronger words, but...do I have to?

I saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" this afternoon.  It's a hard-hitting documentary I fully recommend.  My main criticism is that Moore used too many news clips of Bush and didn't give quite enough emphasis to how 9/11 and the Iraq war is effecting people throughout America.

Study before you go or after you see this smear...

DON'T EVEN NEED TO SEE IT !
I only had to hear that big humoungous piece of propaganda that Bush was in cahoots with the Saudis toget the Bin Ladens out of the country..
Puh..lease! It is on record,..UNDER OATH Richard Clark was part of the arrangements!

Nice telling everyone what took place with the Bush white House having to dealwith this when years beforewith Clinton and Gore having to deal with Afghanistan and sending a missle strike there..and not completing anything  in full force to invade...NO, Moore wouldn't compare how the two administrations have as much to compare with each other!

I look forward to the follow up on how John Kerry is in with Bi Laden because if he keeps the attcking up his wifes' foreign Heinz business will be put out of business....(okay, that's a lie but see?...There are other political DOC-TRASH movies that could ALSO be made!

For a good read, see the story by Mr. Miller on the KGO RADIO AM 810   
site from the San Fran paper.

I refuse to see this movie because I think Michael Moore is a pompous windbag.

I refuse to see this movie because I think Michael Moore is a pompous windbag.


AMEN!

I refuse to see this movie because I think Michael Moore is a pompous windbag.


Ditto.

I don't care that he's won an Oscar, that he's respected, that he's a great director, or even that he cuts down Bush and mocks him. His whole attitude just puts me off and everytime I see his face or hear his voice, I want to scream. :P

I refuse to see this movie because I think Michael Moore is a pompous windbag.


I refuse to pay for this movie because he acts like such a jackass.

If/when it ever comes on TV, I will probably watch it. I'm still waiting for Bowling for Columbine to show up.  :P

I don't understand the "documentary" categorization - even though it's obviously slanted toward one opinion (even Moore admits it), it still counts as a documentary?

So, like, if the U.S. Government created a propaganda film by selectively interviewing Iraqis and Afghanis who agreed with the military action in their countries, and showed only footage that cast the U.S. and the Bush administration in a positive light, would it count as a "documentary" too?

I refuse to see this movie because I think Michael Moore is a pompous windbag.


Amen!  Praise and testify brother Dagwood.

I refuse to pay for this movie because he acts like such a jackass.

If/when it ever comes on TV, I will probably watch it. I'm still waiting for Bowling for Columbine to show up.  :P

I don't understand the "documentary" categorization - even though it's obviously slanted toward one opinion (even Moore admits it), it still counts as a documentary?

So, like, if the U.S. Government created a propaganda film by selectively interviewing Iraqis and Afghanis who agreed with the military action in their countries, and showed only footage that cast the U.S. and the Bush administration in a positive light, would it count as a "documentary" too?



Bowling for Columbine has been on Showtime (?)



Cat

I refuse to pay for this movie because he acts like such a jackass.

If/when it ever comes on TV, I will probably watch it. I'm still waiting for Bowling for Columbine to show up.  :P

I don't understand the "documentary" categorization - even though it's obviously slanted toward one opinion (even Moore admits it), it still counts as a documentary?

So, like, if the U.S. Government created a propaganda film by selectively interviewing Iraqis and Afghanis who agreed with the military action in their countries, and showed only footage that cast the U.S. and the Bush administration in a positive light, would it count as a "documentary" too?


I have never seen a documentary that wasn't biased.  Any selection and arrangement of facts is by definition biased.  Propoganda is the mingling of some facts with half truths and outright lies to create or perpetuate a misleading view (like WMDs and Al Quida - Iraq cooperation).  So your example would be a documentary.  I show several in my college classes, and with the first one I always direct students' attention to the subtle stuff, like music, the use of color, anonimity vrs personability in the portrayal of those interviewd etc. to go even deeper than the fact/half truth/lie surface stuff.  But documentaries are designed to be persuasive.

Here is what Bill O'Reilly had to say about it, I agree with him 100%.  I think you should read this from beginning to end, its very good and true:

''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 floundering 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 change any further.''  -Bill O'Reilly

Here is what Bill O'Reilly had to say about it, I agree with him 100%.  I think you should read this from beginning to end, its very good and true:

''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 floundering 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 change any further.''   -Bill O'Reilly



So now Bill O'Reilly is a great film critic and "holder of the sacred truth".  I don't know when or Where O'Reilly got this supposed info about Saudi Officials, but it was widely reported, and I don't remember it being refuted - although I, like the rest of us, are not privy to the 9/11 commision report, sonce it hasn't been released.  Now, propoganda vrs documentary.

In another thread I advanced the idea that all documentary (and in fact all history) is biased because the selection of facts to include is biased.  Propoganda has to do with including half truths and/or outright lies in ones presentation (as in the case of repeated assertions of WMD and Iraqi/AlQuida cooperation).  If in fact this info about Saudi & Bin Laden folks is incorrect, one must ask when Moore knew it was incorrect and could he have reasonably altered his film to correct the alleged inaccuracies?

Clearly, Bill O'Reilly is no friend of Michael Moore, and is a friend of the sniviling idiot.  Your characterization of  his "review" (one might say crude attempt at a hatchet job) as "very good and true" after your reviewer saw only 1/2 the film demonstrates YOUR  willingness to suspend disbief when it suits your ideological proclivities.  Why don'y you see the film and review it?

Here is what Bill O'Reilly had to say about it, I agree with him 100%.  I think you should read this from beginning to end, its very good and true:


Michael Moore has done nothing FOX News, Rush, Hannity, The Washington Times, and The New York Post don't do every day.  Michael Moore created an opinion piece on current events.  The difference is, Moore SAYS it's an op ed piece.  He doesn't use phrases such as "Fair and Balanced" or "No Spin."
FOX News is a "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the right-wing all day, every day.  They select information and construct stories always with the intent to make the right-wing and the Republicans look favorable.  Bill O'Reilly is one of the most skilled at dressing up right-wing propaganda as "fair and balanced."
When Michael Moore makes a film that does the for the anti-Bush, anti-war point-of-view what FOX does for the partisan Republican, pro-war side, O'Reilly and the rest go nuts.
They either have the attitude that "we can do it, you can't," in which case they're hypocrites, or they really believe that FOX is a fair and unbiased news channel, in which case, they're delusional.

Michael Moore says (IIRC) the Bin Ladens were flown on out of the country on 9/13.  I seem to remember air travel restrictions still in effect on that date.  Does Moore have his information wrong?

I too would NEVER se the Moore film based on the Bin Laden family SPIN/blatant lie...
If he lies about that why go through the film that could be made up of who knows what other lies?

I've heard those who have sen it and what they feel he's implenting.
Not enough.? Moore sure did a good job "staging" the Columbine scenes and tried to pass them off as true.
He likes to spn things and rile people up..I don't buy it and the ticket to any of his work!   

I too would NEVER se the Moore film based on the Bin Laden family SPIN/blatant lie...
If he lies about that why go through the film that could be made up of who knows what other lies?

I've heard those who have sen it and what they feel he's implenting.
Not enough.? Moore sure did a good job "staging" the Columbine scenes and tried to pass them off as true.
He likes to spn things and rile people up..I don't buy it and the ticket to any of his work!     

What specifically in his reporting on the Bin Laden family is a lie?  There's a lot of information on the Bin Ladens in F9/11, and if I knew what you were referring to, I could check it out for myself.

This is basically what everyone is squelching. The connection that Bush let the Bin Ladens out of the country when others were restricted..it goes back to the comments that Richard Clarke gave it the okay under oath in the 911 hearing and to the FBI.

When asked if he ever thought of looking into that Moore said he didn't or didn't need to.

What specifically in his reporting on the Bin Laden family is a lie?  There's a lot of information on the Bin Ladens in F9/11, and if I knew what you were referring to, I could check it out for myself.


But Max, You forget that this a one of the tactics of the right wing, corporate/conservative media.  They accuse liberals of lying, and then, when the proof is brought forward, they ignore it and repeat the lie.  Its a classic propoganda technique, and, as you see, it wotks very well.  Just say its a lie, your uniformed coreligionists will believe you and repeat it, and even if it is shown to bne a lie, the impact will remain.  Joseph Gerbles developed this strategy.  The right, not surprisingly, has come close to perfecting it, as exampled here.

We'll see if Moore likes the proposed idea for the other side view in the movie: "FLIP FLOP"- The John Kerry Story.....


It's been fun...I resign my political discussion for this site now....

We'll see if Moore likes the proposed idea for the other side view in the movie: "FLIP FLOP"- The John Kerry Story.....


It's been fun...I resign my political discussion for this site now....


Gee, that's too bad.  Why???? 

Michael Moore says (IIRC) the Bin Ladens were flown on out of the country on 9/13.  I seem to remember air travel restrictions still in effect on that date.  Does Moore have his information wrong?


When he appeared on The Daily Show, Moore said that the Bin Ladens left the country as soon as air traffic resumed - that they'd basically been ushered to the front of the line by the administration.  Did he give a specific date in the film?

Okay- at this point the  topic has been about what was included in the movie and all the spin put on it.

I can keep saying that and others will say the opposite or maybe come to see what is out there..I refer you to the following as my parting shot on this...

TO ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED IN A CURRENT STORY ON 911 log on to:

san francisco chronicle.com

  click to the  Adam Sparks story from today for his right wing take and what he finds true piece by piece. See if that makes you wonder???

That should get some discussion...

When he appeared on The Daily Show, Moore said that the Bin Ladens left the country as soon as air traffic resumed - that they'd basically been ushered to the front of the line by the administration.  Did he give a specific date in the film?

Moore mentioned the date 9/13, but I can't remember if he was referring to permission for the Bin Ladens to fly, or actual flying. The impression I got was that the Bin Ladens had priority over everyone else once the restriction was lifted.  If this is what Moore meant, he needed to make it crystal clear, which he didn't.

If you have an internet radio stream on KABC.com, they are taking calls about the movie..check it if you can(it's national)...

Callers are pointing out , you can have all truths within a movie but by selective editing they can make it a lie...

Good luck all..

Christopher Hitchens roasts "Farenheit 9/11" in his column for Slate.com.  I don't care for Hitchens (talk about a pompous windbag), and I don't agree with all his criticisms of F9/11, but he makes some very astute points about the film's shortcomings.
Hitchens drives me nuts.  He used to be a vicious left-winger with brains.  Now he's a vicious Bush lackey...with brains!  Ack!
:P

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

Well, it's the topic of the night...if able to, through your computer(if you don't live in L.A. Cal.) check out 790 KABC-AM.
Currently at 6:30pm PDT, they are reeming Michael Moore on the Al Rantel Show..available through streaming audio I guess until 9pm.

Saying a lot and then some on Moores hate for America..why would he call us stupid and only concerned about what's happening within our courtry.

Cheers.

Well, it's the topic of the night...if able to, through your computer(if you don't live in L.A. Cal.) check out 790 KABC-AM.
Currently at 6:30pm PDT, they are reeming Michael Moore on the Al Rantel Show..available through streaming audio I guess until 9pm.

Saying a lot and then some on Moores hate for America..why would he call us stupid and only concerned about what's happening within our courtry.

Cheers.



I still have respect for Hitchens' intellect, horrible snot that he is, but I wouldn't give AM talk jocks the time of day on any issue.

I think there is about as much truth in Mr. Moore's Documentary as Rob Reiner put in his Documentary, "This Is Spinal Tap".

Mr. Moore found that there is a segment of the population that likes to hear trash, so he gives them all they want and more.  I met the man 2 times, and both times he seemed to have no idea what he was talking about.

The problem is that like Al Franken, he tries to present what is essentially commentary as fact.  In fact, there are a great many people involved in his previous "documentaries" that are furious at him for how he used them.  One of the ones that springs to mind most if Mark Taylor.

Mark was one of the people that Mr. Moore took to the K-Mart Corporate Headquarters, demanding answers.  Later on, Mark made the collowing statement:

"I am completely against him. He screwed me over. I had no idea what Moore's agenda was.
And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely. I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."

In "Roger & Me", he at least PRETENDED to be impartial.  With "Bowling", it became obvious to most of us that he had an agenda to push.  Now, he smacks us in the face with it.  Calling the terrorists "Revolutionaries" and comparing them to our own Minute Men is a gross lie.  Ironically, Mugtada Al-Sader's father was assasinated by order of Saddam Hussein!  He fought both Saddam and the new Government in formation, because he wants a Threocracy in Iraq, just like the one in Iran.  And if the US pulled out tonight, does ANYBODY doubt that an overnight bloodbath would ensue between the Sunni Pro-Saddam faction, against the Shi-ite Pro-Saddar faction?

Add to that mix the Druze, the Kurds, and all the others.  The factional fighting would be just like Yugoslavia all over again.  The difference is that Yugoslavia was largely heald together by Marshal Tito's charisma, while Iraq has been held together by fear of Saddam.

I will more then likely NOT watch this movie.  Mostly because I find most of his recent statements to be disgusting.  His claim's are nothing but propaganda.

Side note:  Mr. Moore claims to be independent, yet he is a registered Democrat.  He can not even tell the truth about his own politics.

I think there is about as much truth in Mr. Moore's Documentary as Rob Reiner put in his Documentary, "This Is Spinal Tap".

Mr. Moore found that there is a segment of the population that likes to hear trash, so he gives them all they want and more.  I met the man 2 times, and both times he seemed to have no idea what he was talking about.

The problem is that like Al Franken, he tries to present what is essentially commentary as fact.  In fact, there are a great many people involved in his previous "documentaries" that are furious at him for how he used them.  One of the ones that springs to mind most if Mark Taylor.

Mark was one of the people that Mr. Moore took to the K-Mart Corporate Headquarters, demanding answers.  Later on, Mark made the collowing statement:

"I am completely against him. He screwed me over. I had no idea what Moore's agenda was.
And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely. I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."

In "Roger & Me", he at least PRETENDED to be impartial.  With "Bowling", it became obvious to most of us that he had an agenda to push.  Now, he smacks us in the face with it.  Calling the terrorists "Revolutionaries" and comparing them to our own Minute Men is a gross lie.  Ironically, Mugtada Al-Sader's father was assasinated by order of Saddam Hussein!  He fought both Saddam and the new Government in formation, because he wants a Threocracy in Iraq, just like the one in Iran.  And if the US pulled out tonight, does ANYBODY doubt that an overnight bloodbath would ensue between the Sunni Pro-Saddam faction, against the Shi-ite Pro-Saddar faction?

Add to that mix the Druze, the Kurds, and all the others.  The factional fighting would be just like Yugoslavia all over again.  The difference is that Yugoslavia was largely heald together by Marshal Tito's charisma, while Iraq has been held together by fear of Saddam.

I will more then likely NOT watch this movie.  Mostly because I find most of his recent statements to be disgusting.  His claim's are nothing but propaganda.

Side note:  Mr. Moore claims to be independent, yet he is a registered Democrat.  He can not even tell the truth about his own politics.

I never heard Mr. Moore declare himself a registered independent.  If he did, and lied about it, shame on him.  That's what Bill O'Reilly did.  He claimed he was a registered independent, turns out he was a registered Republican all the while.
The reason I posted that link to Hitchens' "Slate" article is that I see major flaws in "Fahrenheit 9/11," enjoy it though I did.  I saw major flaws in "Bowling for Columbine," too.  I'm not looking to Michael Moore to define my political philosophy. 
I'll say again, and again if I have to, Moore has done nothing FOX News doesn't do day in and day out.  The difference is the voices calling Moore to task are bigger and louder than those calling FOX News to task.

Enjoyed reading the Vanity Fair article.

Someone did their homework. When Michael Moore was asked about a certain depiction he made and was challenged he brushed it off that he didn't see whatever they tried to point out to him.

Also, heard a national talk show caller from Mich. call in claiming in the ROGER AND ME movie many people saw that lady who raised the rabbits and had to eat them because her husband lost his job at GM...the caller said those locally know the guy NEVER worked at GM and it the people chose to raise and eat rabbits when they didn't have to.

ASK ASK ASK!

This movie challenge is flying fast as the question seemed NOTto be adequately answered...the question in the movie was did anyone SPEAK with the Bin Ladens before letting them fly away.. others are answering that there were accusations they left during the restricted hours.

So, maybe they DID leave thanks to Richard Clark, but were they INTERROGATED ?


NEXT....I await to hear if THAT was the big to do???   

Hi all,
I sent out the  O'Reilly column to the cyberspace and got an interesting response...it seems this answer Ireceived may need your input as this person wants a REAL intelligent response  to the movie flaws apparently...Thanks for your help:

      It's real easy to be bill o'reilly.  I've read and watched him enough, before I became clear on his agenda, to know that facts are not relevant to his analysis.  He simply speculates and invents, as he has in the column you sent me.

      But, beyond all this, Moore's basic premise and evidence are all true.  Rather than examining and addressing that, and then bringing to it a different point of view, (i.e., "sure, these facts are accurate, but you're seeing it the wrong way:  here's what it really means..." ), conservatives would rather attack the messenger, which has been the Bush strategy for four years.  A statistic comes up that he doesn't like, and the people attached to it get fired.  An assumption about war or the economy doesn't work out the way he'd like, they lie about the result.  He won't even let American, nobel prize winning scientists go to the world health organization summit, until they are approved by a new political appointee who will screen them to make sure the administration approves of them.

      But about this, we haven't had conversation.  Michael Moore is a partisan, but effective movie maker.  that's all.  George Bush is the leader of the free world.  But we're so busy "spreading democracy"  that somehow it's "unpatriotic" for us to have dissent or discussion, or even examination of how he does business.     

      Bill O'reilly has had so many stories wrong, like the ones I mentioned at willie mo... the WEllstone funeral... the last days of the Clinton White House, the Cheney energy policy meetings, no matter what the story he has some sort of invention.

        He doesn't investigate.  He  pontificates.  the statements "we've got to get the truth out there" and "this is an op-ed piece" are not inconsistent. 

        This conservative attitude, that I've had Rush and O'Reilly and Hannity talk to me, I don't have to concern myself with actual events, nauseates me.  It's an excuse for intellectual laziness. It discourages actual examination of information and events as they happen.  It discourages the honest debate and informed citizenry that make a democracy work. 

        O'Reilly's opinion has no meaning for me.  Why?

    Because Bush's family DOES have a long relationship with the bin Laden family.  Because bin Laden's family DID get flown out of the country when no one else was allowed to fly.  BEcause President Bush DID sit there, reading "My Pet Goat," after learning that the nation was under attack.  Because Afghanistan DID change it's policy, and approve a pipeline to run under its land, after we attacked the country, and installed a former Unocal employee as president.  Because we DON'T have any evidence of an Iraqi involvement with al qaeda or with nine eleven. 

          And because the president DID try to cut army pay, and cut medical benefits for the military and its veterans.  And because the white house DID (it finally admitted) have a banner printed that says "Mission Accomplished" for their photo op on the aircraft carrier, while our guys are getting shot at. 

      None of this is being questioned as to its veracity.  Maybe you feel that it's all easily explained away.  I for one, don't.  and these are all issues brought up in Farenheit 911.  Besides that, there are honest questions about this war, our country, and how we want to run things. 

      We attacked a country that did not attack us, but we claim we were protecting ourselves from problems that turned out not to exist.  If you think people are not allowed to write, make films and argue and protest about this, well, we live in different Americas.  I suppose that damn bill of rights can be a real pain in the neck sometimes, huh?

      And you can nitpick if you want about Mel Gibson.  Fine, it's a different situation, I was wrong to put it that way, etc.  The fact remains, you either see a work of art, or you don't.  Once you see it, if you see it with an open mind, whatever conclusions you reach are valid results of your own experience, as are my thoughts about Reilly after watching him.

  As far as Bowling for Columbine is concerned, I suppose the "patriotic thing" you'd advocate, is for us to simply forget that we live in the most violent culture in the world, and kids shot up a school.  Because God forbid it becomes one tenth of one percent harder to get guns.  The central facts of that movie are accurate.  Does Michael Moore ask people to do certain things to illustrate his points?  Sure.  Does he force them? No.  Is he a provocateur?  Yes.  But all documentaries have a point of view.  Every reality show has the bias that we all want sex with 22 year olds and that money is the meaning of life.  Most shows on fox are either about those two themes, or how afraid we should be every minute of our lives.  But apparently, Mr. O'Reilly has no problem with that.

      If you want to take a look, on your own, at what's going on, and discuss it, that's fine.  But forwarded diatribes, no thanks. 

      I've got no problem talking politics, sports, whatever.  It's honest interaction with other people.  And I beg conservatives to tell me more about why they feel the way they do.  My frustration is, I never get logic back.  I constantly hear this ditto-head mentality of, "one of our holy priests (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity) said so, so I don't need to know any more."  It's kind of a conversation stopper.  Because I'm interested in hearing the knowledge and point of view of the person I'm talking to.  Not the point of view of someone who makes their living yelling liberal and unAmerican in the same sentence regardless of the issue.

Hi all,
I sent out the  O'Reilly column to the cyberspace and got an interesting response...it seems this answer Ireceived may need your input as this person wants a REAL intelligent response  to the movie flaws apparently...Thanks for your help:
That's why I recommend the Hitchens' critique of F9/11, not O'Reilly's!

       It's real easy to be bill o'reilly.  I've read and watched him enough, before I became clear on his agenda, to know that facts are not relevant to his analysis.  He simply speculates and invents, as he has in the column you sent me.
O'Reilly's job is that of propagandist.  It matters not how many critics have shown him a phony by content analysis.  When you have the 15 hours a week of air time and the audience of millions O'Reilly has, you're message is heard.  The opposition to you is insignificant.  O'Reilly never has to answer for himself on his own turf.  If a guest gets too close for comfort, he cuts them off.

   But, beyond all this, Moore's basic premise and evidence are all true.  Rather than examining and addressing that, and then bringing to it a different point of view, (i.e., "sure, these facts are accurate, but you're seeing it the wrong way:  here's what it really means..." ), conservatives would rather attack the messenger, which has been the Bush strategy for four years.  A statistic comes up that he doesn't like, and the people attached to it get fired.  An assumption about war or the economy doesn't work out the way he'd like, they lie about the result.  He won't even let American, nobel prize winning scientists go to the world health organization summit, until they are approved by a new political appointee who will screen them to make sure the administration approves of them.

       But about this, we haven't had conversation.  Michael Moore is a partisan, but effective movie maker.  that's all.  George Bush is the leader of the free world.  But we're so busy "spreading democracy"  that somehow it's "unpatriotic" for us to have dissent or discussion, or even examination of how he does business.       
You're basically right here.  Michael Moore is in general correct on his facts, and he presented them to portray Bush in the worst possible light.  I do wish he had portrayed the atrocities perpetuated by Saddam, and not portrayed Saddam's Iraq as a benign state.  He could have done so without compromising his message.  Also, it's NOT true that Iraq had never killed any Americans.
I also wish he'd been more clear about the meaning of following those Marine recruiters around Flint, Michigan.  The armed forces are often the best option for poor kids from places like Flint, and millions of poor kids DO come out of the military with marketable skills and a better sense of themselves.  Also, the Marines are quite exclusive.  Not every kid a recruiter convinces to try out will qualify.  The other branches of the armed forces are not quite as restrictive as the Marines.
Moore's point is that when war does come, the poor do the fighting and dying. 
He accosts those congressmen, asking them about getting their kids into the military, to show that the children of the powerful, privileged, and wealthy are less likely to fight and die; the children of those who make policy requiring soldiers to go to combat get to stay home.
Everybody's figured this out already!  Hitchens points out the illogic of approaching the congressmen about their kids.  It's not a parent's decision to send his kid to the military!  I what chance there was that a given congressman has a child of recruitment age.  Anyway...

   Bill O'reilly has had so many stories wrong, like the ones I mentioned at willie mo... the WEllstone funeral... the last days of the Clinton White House, the Cheney energy policy meetings, no matter what the story he has some sort of invention.
Yes, the Wellestone funeral was outrageously misrepresented by the right-wing.  They did exactly what they're now jumping all over Moore for.  They took a few incidences from the funeral out of context to make in look like the funeral turned into a political ralley.  They also made stuff up, like saying Sen. Trent Lott was booed, when he wasn't.

He doesn't investigate.  He  pontificates.  the statements "we've got to get the truth out there" and "this is an op-ed piece" are not inconsistent.  This conservative attitude, that I've had Rush and O'Reilly and Hannity talk to me, I don't have to concern myself with actual events, nauseates me.  It's an excuse for intellectual laziness. It discourages actual examination of information and events as they happen.  It discourages the honest debate and informed citizenry that make a democracy work. 
Exactly.  What you see from the above mentioned is propaganda and political pornography.

O'Reilly's opinion has no meaning for me.  Why?
Because Bush's family DOES have a long relationship with the bin Laden family.   Because bin Laden's family DID get flown out of the country when no one else was allowed to fly.  BEcause President Bush DID sit there, reading "My Pet Goat," after learning that the nation was under attack.  Because Afghanistan DID change it's policy, and approve a pipeline to run under its land, after we attacked the country, and installed a former Unocal employee as president.  Because we DON'T have any evidence of an Iraqi involvement with al qaeda or with nine eleven. 
I agree here, though as Hitchens' points out, the Afghan pipeline project was abandoned way back in 1998.  I'm not sure it was a great idea for Moore to use that in the film.

And because the president DID try to cut army pay, and cut medical benefits for the military and its veterans.  And because the white house DID (it finally admitted) have a banner printed that says "Mission Accomplished" for their photo op on the aircraft carrier, while our guys are getting shot at.   None of this is being questioned as to its veracity.  Maybe you feel that it's all easily explained away.  I for one, don't.  and these are all issues brought up in Farenheit 911.  Besides that, there are honest questions about this war, our country, and how we want to run things.  We attacked a country that did not attack us, but we claim we were protecting ourselves from problems that turned out not to exist.  If you think people are not allowed to write, make films and argue and protest about this, well, we live in different Americas.  I suppose that darn bill of rights can be a real pain in the neck sometimes, huh?
Yes, indeed.  I'd phrase it a bit differently.  The hostilities we've had with Iraq stem largely from Iraq being the 80-year old child of a colonial creation, western lust for oil, and American meddling in the affairs of other nations.  To wit, our bolstering of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, and our providing him with weapons of mass destruction he used against the Kurds.  Moore does show Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in '83, but again, he glossed over Saddam's atrocities.

 And you can nitpick if you want about Mel Gibson.   Fine, it's a different situation, I was wrong to put it that way, etc.  The fact remains, you either see a work of art, or you don't.  Once you see it, if you see it with an open mind, whatever conclusions you reach are valid results of your own experience, as are my thoughts about Reilly after watching him. 
The right-wing wants to impose their reactionary Christian fundamentalist values on everybody.  They projected their struggle into Gibson's film.  They played the martyred Christ, and the "secularists" played the ones doing the martyring.  In his usual fashion, O'Reilly pretended to be more crtical of "Passion" than the other right-wingers, but O'Reilly always comes back around to bash this made-up bunch he calls the "secularists."  He hates the secularists because unlike the counterpart he made up for them, the "traditionalists," the secularists don't like to "make judgments about personal behavior."  Well, without "judgments about personal behavior" the O'Reilly has nothing to say!

As far as Bowling for Columbine is concerned, I suppose the "patriotic thing" you'd advocate, is for us to simply forget that we live in the most violent culture in the world, and kids shot up a school.  Because God forbid it becomes one tenth of one percent harder to get guns.  The central facts of that movie are accurate.  Does Michael Moore ask people to do certain things to illustrate his points?  Sure.  Does he force them? No.  Is he a provocateur?  Yes.  But all documentaries have a point of view.  Every reality show has the bias that we all want sex with 22 year olds and that money is the meaning of life.  Most shows on fox are either about those two themes, or how afraid we should be every minute of our lives.  But apparently, Mr. O'Reilly has no problem with that.
I agree.  Primetime television is ten times more toxic to the social health of this country than any Michael Moore film could approach in a million years.  The values portrayed are greed, pettiness, jealousy, ridicule, conformity, and sexual exclusivity based on arbitrary standards of pulchritude.  This culture is dumbed-down and socially retarded.

If you want to take a look, on your own, at what's going on, and discuss it, that's fine.  But forwarded diatribes, no thanks. 

      I've got no problem talking politics, sports, whatever.  It's honest interaction with other people.  And I beg conservatives to tell me more about why they feel the way they do.   My frustration is, I never get logic back.  I constantly hear this ditto-head mentality of, "one of our holy priests (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity) said so, so I don't need to know any more."  It's kind of a conversation stopper.  Because I'm interested in hearing the knowledge and point of view of the person I'm talking to.  Not the point of view of someone who makes their living yelling liberal and unAmerican in the same sentence regardless of the issue.


Sorry, Saver, analysis is out, shouting is in.  It's enough to make you wanna cry!
:\'(

Thanks Max..I was pretty much in agreement that the O'Reily comments really ranted on with attitude..

I forwarded the Hitchens article on to the same person who feels there was an issue with them as well...SEE:

. I read the Hitchens piece you sent.  let me summarize:  He didn't like moore before, he's glad we went to war, he doesn't like moore now.

        Hitchens is so freaked out at the idea that osama should be presumed innocent. Osama bin Laden SHOULD be presumed innocent.  So should Saddam Hussein.  So should Hitler. That's the whole point of the American justice system.  You prove your case, convict the sonofabitch, even though you have to try him, and he has a defense.
       
      But this whole idea of a trial makes a deeper point.  9-11 was a vicious crime.  Instead of treating it like one, we've been killing a variety of apolitical people, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.  Thousands and thousands.  Never discussing it on tv.  Never hearing about it from the white house.  What we should have done, from the get go, is recognize this for the crime it is, and immediately go get the criminals.  We gave bin Laden a couple months head start, then we start a war.
   
    Yep, Farenheit 911 is a political movie.  If you're apolitical, why would you ever go to it, anyway?  But my original point remains.  Moore DID get it right-- .  And I'm not surprised that a lot of people are pissed off about that.  It's upsetting.  And if I thought this war was a good idea, I'd do everything I could to suggest that Moore is wrong.  I understand that.  And if I thought it was our patriotic duty to agree with the administration, I'd be yelling and screaming about it. 

    But there are too many facts in this movie that are uncomfortable for our government to talk about.  Start with this: 15 Saudi Arabian citizens get on planes and blow up American landmarks.  Do we demand justice from the Saudis?  Anybody talking about invading Saudi Arabia?  Nope.  We go to Afghanistan. It's upsetting to look at it that way.  But biased?  How is that biased?  There's a lot of stuff in the movie that is simply a shift of perspective from the same old political-military establishment babble.

          Now, sometimes Moore presents his case in a shrill, oversimplified, Junior high school way, but his points, unlike the arguments put forward by this administration, are based in fact.  Facts in the movie that are not being questioned by this administration, just re-spun. 

Comments?

The real problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't that it attacks the current Republican administration , but that it does so clumsily and with poor focus. Moore does much of his preaching with a paucity of facts, relying on circumstantial evidence and insinuation to make his points. The movie isn't skilled enough or incisive enough to represent a cause for concern. Democrats will embrace it and Republicans will revile it, and, although the extremity of neither reaction is warranted, both are expected.

It's not above Moore to manipulate the facts to further his own agenda. Whether it's taking such facts and figures out of context, adding musical cues and songs to drive home his point or coming up with his own conclusions, one must take what's presented here with a great deal of salt or at least an advisory/disclaimer.

For instance, while I agree with some of his points, Moore shows pre-war Iraq as a happy place with kids playing and flying kites, etc... While I'm sure that occurred, there's no footage or mention of the horrible effects of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship over his people or the documented vast murder sprees. I don't say that to defend those accused in the film, but rather to point out that things are obviously one-sided.

His supporters may argue that he's presenting such "evidence" with tongue firmly planted in cheek -- as if everyone will understand he's purposefully going over the top to prove his point. Yet, if he wants this to be a true documentary and not just a seemingly paranoid character and administration assassination attempt, things should be a bit more balanced and fair.

It's not above Moore to manipulate the facts to further his own agenda. Whether it's taking such facts and figures out of context, adding musical cues and songs to drive home his point or coming up with his own conclusions, one must take what's presented here with a great deal of salt or at least an advisory/disclaimer.

For instance, while I agree with some of his points, Moore shows pre-war Iraq as a happy place with kids playing and flying kites, etc... While I'm sure that occurred, there's no footage or mention of the horrible effects of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship over his people or the documented vast murder sprees. I don't say that to defend those accused in the film, but rather to point out that things are obviously one-sided.




I agree, it bugged me that Moore left out Saddam's atrocities, but only because there might be people watching IGNORANT enough NOT to know Saddam committed atrocities.  I should say one could make a documentary much more damning of American foreign policy by detailing Saddam's attrocities in the '70s and '80s, and then showing America's relationship with this brutal dictator.  Moore played that rather lightly.  He only showed the one shot of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.
If you think a truthful film about Saddam's atrocities would make the Bush Administration look like the the Angels of Mercy they try to portray themselves as.  'Tain't necessarily so.  We gave him plenty of weapons to slaughter Iranians with, some of which he used on the Kurds in the north.  He gased the Kurds with gas America gave him.  Saddie only became a baddie when he butted in on Kuwaiti oil.  That's where American priorities are.  We don't give a frog's fat @ss about mass murder, torture, and atrocities.  Just ask the Timorese, or the Nicaraguans, or, for that matter, the Phillipinos.

I agree, it bugged me that Moore left out Saddam's atrocities, but only because there might be people watching IGNORANT enough NOT to know Saddam committed atrocities.  I should say one could make a documentary much more damning of American foreign policy by detailing Saddam's attrocities in the '70s and '80s, and then showing America's relationship with this brutal dictator.  Moore played that rather lightly.  He only showed the one shot of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.
I thought that the footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein back in the 1980's was one of the most disturbing parts of the film.  What really bothered me was how warmly Saddam greeted Rumsfeld, as if they were very good friends. Their relationship wasn't just diplomatic...no, these guys were BUDDIES. Oh...but NOW we have to remove a brutal and oppresive regime??? What a collection of a**holes.

I thought that the footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein back in the 1980's was one of the most disturbing parts of the film.  What really bothered me was how warmly Saddam greeted Rumsfeld, as if they were very good friends. Their relationship wasn't just diplomatic...no, these guys were BUDDIES. Oh...but NOW we have to remove a brutal and oppresive regime??? What a collection of a**holes.


You remember when you were a kid and you lent a friend a dollar so he'd do something good for you and he promised to do it, and later give you something in return, but didn't and then said "I'm not your friend anymore, you suck"?

That's sorta what happened.  Except on a more global scale.

Why were we so skeptical in the 80's about foreign wars? And why do we readily accept the need to fight in in the Islamic countries today? Is terrorism more evil that communism? Or do we think we can easily kick someone's (IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN) ass?

Bush good-eternal-friends with the Saudis...Didn't they tell him NOT to invade Iraq???...

Those that attacked America were trained in Iraq..
so what's with the complaints?

I never heard Mr. Moore declare himself a registered independent.  If he did, and lied about it, shame on him.  That's what Bill O'Reilly did.  He claimed he was a registered independent, turns out he was a registered Republican all the while.
The reason I posted that link to Hitchens' "Slate" article is that I see major flaws in "Fahrenheit 9/11," enjoy it though I did.  I saw major flaws in "Bowling for Columbine," too.  I'm not looking to Michael Moore to define my political philosophy. 
I'll say again, and again if I have to, Moore has done nothing FOX News doesn't do day in and day out.  The difference is the voices calling Moore to task are bigger and louder than those calling FOX News to task.
FARCE(Fox)News is a JOKE...as I have said before. And I'd bet the GOPers on this board are gonna be annoyed by what I've said! And Moore is just a whiny spoiled overgrown child.

I have to wonder....if our government knew 9/11 was gonna happen...why wasn't the National Guard mobilized...and potential targets warned....before it happened? I also think the FAA and air traffic controllers dropped the ball as far as tracking those errant planes and getting the Air Force/Air National Guard up to intercept them before the terrorists did their dirty work!Oh..if the public knew...there would be PANIC...but wouldn't lives be saved if targets were evacuated?

I just saw Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight. This movie has been selling out here in Lincoln all weekend so far. (I've also heard that it's number one at the box office, which is unprecedented for a documentary film.) For the most part, it just reinforced everything I already suspected about the Bush administration, yet it also accused the Bush family of having questionable business ties to the Saudi royal family and the Bin Ladins, which I found very interesting. I felt that this film was very well made and that Michael Moore is indeed a talented filmmaker, and there were quite a few scenes that genuinely moved me. However there were a couple of things that really p*ssed me off. There was a scene where they showed footage of Baghdad just before the invasion, where Iraqi children were running around, laughing and playing and flying kites; and a sidewalk cafe where people were smiling and relaxing. It portrayed pre-war Baghdad as being this happy fun place. Where was the footage of the dead Kurds that were massacred in Saddam's chemical attack, or Uday and Qusay's infamous wood chipper, or Saddam's torture chambers, or the mass graves that our troops have recently uncovered? The film also poked fun at the "coalition of the willing," naming small countries like Iceland, Morocco, and the Netherlands but omitting key, more powerful allies like Great Britain, Japan, Australia and South Korea.
      The audience was obviously mostly left-leaning, and I thought a lot of their laughter was just from knee-jerk reactions. (One guy wasn't, and he was very upset after the movie ended, yelling, "THIS IS BULLSH*T!" and he actually came close to getting into a physical altercation outside the theater.) What was really ironic was that in one montage, Moore was poking fun at Bush's extended vacation during the summer of 2001, showing him golfing and fishing and hiking around his ranch, but that just gave me the impressiion that George W. would actually be kind of a fun guy to hang out with.  But when they showed sound bites of Bush speaking at formal dinners for his backers and other conferences, it made my blood boil. ("There are the haves, and then there are the have-mores. I call you my backers.") There was one scene where a bunch of corporations had convened to discuss the potential windfall of the war, and one man said, "Well, this war is good and bad...It's bad that people are going to die but it'll be good for business." Perhaps the most important thing about this film was that it illustrated the true nature of this war by showing graphic war footage and scenes of veterans with missing limbs that you NEVER see anywhere in the mainstream press. Regardless of one's political affiliation, people really need to see this movie, if for no other reason, than to see for themselves the human cost and suffering this war has really caused. And for what??? Go see this film, I highly recommend it. (Just make sure your B.S. filter is turned on.)



Truthfully I want to see this movie.  But I dont think I'll see it until it comes out becasuse it doesnt looks like it would be worth $8 to me.  But on the other hand I personally dont like Michael Moore.  Bowling for Columbine the documentary he made for shootings that took place at columbine was an ok movie.  I actually shed a few tears when footage of real sad things came on like the horrified women's voice when the kids were in the library, and the footage of war and cr@p came on.  But when he makes his movies, he kinda leaves out many points of views.  Like In BFC he left out kids points of views, like what causes violence for them and all that other stuff.  He only interviewd "Smart" Adults.  Sorry for going off topic for a bit but I'm just sharing on how I view his "Excellent" and "well-done" documentaries even if I only seen one and the next one will probably be the same, but I can still say something from that little piece of evidence.

There was a scene where they showed footage of Baghdad just before the invasion, where Iraqi children were running around, laughing and playing and flying kites; and a sidewalk cafe where people were smiling and relaxing. It portrayed pre-war Baghdad as being this happy fun place.      


I would like to know how there was footage of bagdad before the invasion, and whoever filmed it wouldnt they have got blown away ??? I want to know how he gets all this personal footage from, he must have to be doing some illegal stuff to get it or something.  You cant just go into a toy store, pick up the most expensive thing and ask "Can I have this?"

I would like to know how there was footage of bagdad before the invasion, and whoever filmed it wouldnt they have got blown away ??? I want to know how he gets all this personal footage from, he must have to be doing some illegal stuff to get it or something.  You cant just go into a toy store, pick up the most expensive thing and ask "Can I have this?"


You can if you have the money on you to pay for it. 

A lot of what he used was stock news footage.  Anybody can use stock footage.  Everything else was either given to him by the people who shot it or he licensed the rights for use in the film.  It's pretty standard stuff, nothing shady or mysterious about it.  As for the pre-attack footage from Iraq, besides the fact that they had their own television industry and news crews, over there, (Iraq was hardly stuck in the stone age!) the impending war we were threatening brought news crews from all over the world to Iraq to cover the breaking story.  There's no shortage of pre-war footage shot over there.   

You can if you have the money on you to pay for it. 

A lot of what he used was stock news footage.  Anybody can use stock footage.  Everything else was either given to him by the people who shot it or he licensed the rights for use in the film.  It's pretty standard stuff, nothing shady or mysterious about it.   As for the pre-attack footage from Iraq, besides the fact that they had their own television industry and news crews, over there, (Iraq was hardly stuck in the stone age!) the impending war we were threatening brought news crews from all over the world to Iraq to cover the breaking story.  There's no shortage of pre-war footage shot over there.   


OK thanks for clarifying that :)

I refuse to see this movie because I think Michael Moore is a pompous windbag.


If you won't go to see a movie by a pompous windbag then I guess you won't be going to any more movies.
If that follows into other areas I guess you won't be reading too many books, or listening to any music, or reading newspapers, and lord only knows this website is out.

My question about 9-11 is...WHERE THE H*** WERE THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS WHEN THE PLANES STARTED TO STRAY FROM THE ORIGINAL FLIGHT PLAN!?! And had the ATC's been on the ball,could tragedy have been averted?

If you won't go to see a movie by a pompous windbag then I guess you won't be going to any more movies.
If that follows into other areas I guess you won't be reading too many books, or listening to any music, or reading newspapers, and lord only knows this website is out.

The right-wing has their own version of Fahrenheit 9/11.  It's on every evening starting with Neil Cavuto and ending with Greta Van Susteren.  It's called the FOX News Channel, and FOX night after night commits all the sins of which they accuse Michael Moore of committing in F911!!

My question about 9-11 is...WHERE THE H*** WERE THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS WHEN THE PLANES STARTED TO STRAY FROM THE ORIGINAL FLIGHT PLAN!?! And had the ATC's been on the ball,could tragedy have been averted?


I dunno, ask Ronnie Reagan!
;D

The real problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't that it attacks the current Republican administration , but that it does so clumsily and with poor focus. Moore does much of his preaching with a paucity of facts, relying on circumstantial evidence and insinuation to make his points. The movie isn't skilled enough or incisive enough to represent a cause for concern. Democrats will embrace it and Republicans will revile it, and, although the extremity of neither reaction is warranted, both are expected.

It's not above Moore to manipulate the facts to further his own agenda. Whether it's taking such facts and figures out of context, adding musical cues and songs to drive home his point or coming up with his own conclusions, one must take what's presented here with a great deal of salt or at least an advisory/disclaimer.

For instance, while I agree with some of his points, Moore shows pre-war Iraq as a happy place with kids playing and flying kites, etc... While I'm sure that occurred, there's no footage or mention of the horrible effects of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship over his people or the documented vast murder sprees. I don't say that to defend those accused in the film, but rather to point out that things are obviously one-sided.

His supporters may argue that he's presenting such "evidence" with tongue firmly planted in cheek -- as if everyone will understand he's purposefully going over the top to prove his point. Yet, if he wants this to be a true documentary and not just a seemingly paranoid character and administration assassination attempt, things should be a bit more balanced and fair.

Remember Michael Moore was the brains behind a network show that bombed in the ratings....TV Nation!

Remember Michael Moore was the brains behind a network show that bombed in the ratings....TV Nation!

Oh come on!  It did pretty well, considering it was stuck on an obscure cable station called "Bravo"!

I dunno, ask Ronnie Reagan!
;D
I'd have to hold a seance to get hold of "the Gipper".... ;)

Oh come on!  It did pretty well, considering it was stuck on an obscure cable station called "Bravo"!
It bombed on NBC though! The one episode I liked was Moore's putdown of the KKK and the Aryan Nations....both ugly,racist loser thug homegrown terror gangs DESERVE it!!!

I'd have to hold a seance to get hold of "the Gipper".... ;)


That's what they did for eight years in the '80's when they wanted to talk to him

It bombed on NBC though! The one episode I liked was Moore's putdown of the KKK and the Aryan Nations....both ugly,racist loser thug homegrown terror gangs DESERVE it!!!


I dont think you should have used the word "Thug"

The right-wing has their own version of Fahrenheit 9/11.  It's on every evening starting with Neil Cavuto and ending with Greta Van Susteren.  It's called the FOX News Channel, and FOX night after night commits all the sins of which they accuse Michael Moore of committing in F911!!
Fox aka Faux News Channel should be renamed "The Right-Wing Cable Propaganda and Agendas Channel"!

I dont think you should have used the word "Thug"
They are THUGS....the word THUG meaning nasty,mean people....who kill because their victim is not 'aryan'....

They are THUGS....the word THUG meaning nasty,mean people....who kill because their victim is not 'aryan'....


actually it doesnt mean nasty mean people.  It means hoodlum,cutthroat, or ruffian..... which I guess you can call them that.  But you really shouldnt use it because people view thugs as a whole different meaning and someone might take it the wrong way.......

actually it doesnt mean nasty mean people.  It means hoodlum,cutthroat, or ruffian..... which I guess you can call them that.  But you really shouldnt use it because people view thugs as a whole different meaning and someone might take it the wrong way.......

Now, thanks to the Hip-Hop schtick, it's gaining positive connotations, like the words "gangsta" and "pimp."  Yeah, great, really swell.
::)

Now, thanks to the Hip-Hop schtick, it's gaining positive connotations, like the words "gangsta" and "pimp."  Yeah, great, really swell.
::)


Actually you cant really say that its gaining positive connotations.  Ruffian does mean "gangster" or "Thug" and gangsters were back then, it just continues on today.but I'm sure that people knows that "Thug" means gangters, and we all know gangsters are "Bad"

But I dont think I'll see it until it comes out becasuse it doesnt looks like it would be worth $8 to me.This is just my opinion but I saw it last night and it was WELL worth $8. It had the audience laughing out loud one minute and holding back tears the next. I'll tell you what, you can say what you want about Michael Moore but the guy did his homework on this one. I've heard the BS that it is "filled with lies" (mostly from people who haven't even seen it) but I've yet to see any of the facts refuted. Granted, he puts his spin on the issues and edits the footage so as not to portray Dubya as the  brightest bulb in the socket (even though Bush does a fine job of that himself), but anyone that says this man (Michael Moore) "hates America" is full of it!

This is just my opinion but I saw it last night and it was WELL worth $8. It had the audience laughing out loud one minute and holding back tears the next. I'll tell you what, you can say what you want about Michael Moore but the guy did his homework on this one. I've heard the BS that it is "filled with lies" (mostly from people who haven't even seen it) but I've yet to see any of the facts refuted. Granted, he puts his spin on the issues and edits the footage so as not to portray Dubya as the  brightest bulb in the socket (even though Bush does a fine job of that himself), but anyone that says this man (Michael Moore) "hates America" is full of it!


I didnt say he hated America.............I'm pretty sure you quoted me because I remember putting that down on what I wrote......but anywho I dotnt think it would be worth $8 to me, and yes he makes god documentaries but to me he leaves out a lot of info to, but thats just my opinion

I didnt say he hated America.............I'm pretty sure you quoted me because I remember putting that down on what I wrote......but anywho I dotnt think it would be worth $8 to me, and yes he makes god documentaries but to me he leaves out a lot of info to, but thats just my opinion
Nope, I wasn't quoting you at all. I was quoting the michaelmoorehatesamerica.com website plus any number of right wingers that seem to believe that you can't disagree with the policy of your .......*ahem*........leaders (and I use that term loosely), and still be a patriot.

Michael Moore is doing a free screening of  "911"  in Crawford Texas, he sent geogie a personal invitation.
Can't wait to see how it plays to the hometown crowd.

The real problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't that it attacks the current Republican administration , but that it does so clumsily and with poor focus. Moore does much of his preaching with a paucity of facts, relying on circumstantial evidence and insinuation to make his points. The movie isn't skilled enough or incisive enough to represent a cause for concern. Democrats will embrace it and Republicans will revile it, and, although the extremity of neither reaction is warranted, both are expected.




   Raising the dead, here...

   An observation - F-9/11:

   I think Moore's contempt for the dems gets a bit overlooked. He certainly wants Bush out but the few times he mentioned the democrats in his movie he was less-than-flattering

   One of the things that I like tremendously about Moore is that sometimes it seems like he's the only other person in the world who saw something I thought I saw. The voter-cancellation issue is coming to the fore at last. And all because someone wants to pick a losing battle with Moore about race.

   In SWM, he asked a question I'd been wondering about since Sam Nunn coughed and Clinton got buried on gays in the military:
Would the real Democratic Party please show up?

 

  One of the things that I like tremendously about Moore is that sometimes it seems like he's the only other person in the world who saw something I thought I saw. The voter-cancellation issue is coming to the fore at last. And all because someone wants to pick a losing battle with Moore about race.

  In SWM, he asked a question I'd been wondering about since Sam Nunn coughed and Clinton got buried on gays in the military:
Would the real Democratic Party please show up?


Good God Yes, the voter cancellation story is what has been driving me over the edge. 
The fact that it has been so ignored speaks volumes about the behind the scenes collusion
that permeates the political system, all the the benefit of them and the detriment of the people
of the United States.  What is worse is the people, all of the people of the United States who
rationalize, ignore, or simply shrug it off.  The story is out there and todays American doesn't
care.

   Raising the dead, here...

   An observation - F-9/11:

   I think Moore's contempt for the dems gets a bit overlooked. He certainly wants Bush out but the few times he mentioned the democrats in his movie he was less-than-flattering

   One of the things that I like tremendously about Moore is that sometimes it seems like he's the only other person in the world who saw something I thought I saw. The voter-cancellation issue is coming to the fore at last. And all because someone wants to pick a losing battle with Moore about race.

   In SWM, he asked a question I'd been wondering about since Sam Nunn coughed and Clinton got buried on gays in the military:
Would the real Democratic Party please show up?
I'm with you 100% on this one Davester. Seems that when any issue is brought up in todays USA, that you have to either take the side of the Dems. or the Repubs...........the Libs. or the Conservs........like it's some kind of sporting competition. Why can't we argue on the side or RIGHT and WRONG, or RATIONAL and INSANITY?!? And as I stated in an earlier post, anyone that says Michael Moore is un-American is full of it! He doesn't harp on the issues that the main-stream media tells us we should be addressing........he brings up things that are as plain as the nose on your face, but that no one that has the power to do something about them EVER bring up.

I'm with you 100% on this one Davester. Seems that when any issue is brought up in todays USA, that you have to either take the side of the Dems. or the Repubs...........the Libs. or the Conservs........like it's some kind of sporting competition. Why can't we argue on the side or RIGHT and WRONG, or RATIONAL and INSANITY?!? And as I stated in an earlier post, anyone that says Michael Moore is un-American is full of it! He doesn't harp on the issues that the main-stream media tells us we should be addressing........he brings up things that are as plain as the nose on your face, but that no one that has the power to do something about them EVER bring up.

I agree.

Dude, et al....

Want to see Moore stuff refuted?

There are 59 lies found in the film and a list should be posted on the Larry Elder site through KABC radio(he said he will be posting the column).
THERE!

I was chastised week#1 bwecause I didn't/wouldn't see the film and was told 'How can I call it lies when I didn't see it to talk further about?"

I trusted radio commentators Dr. Bill Wattenburg(KGO-AM810-San Fran) who also didn't see it but judged by the Bin Laden transporting  lie it wasn't worth seeing...It didn't matter now after all the lies are pointed out...if the people who are educated and don't have to see it can point out its errors,  I believe them and saved a few minutes of my time!
Doug MacIntyre of KABC-LA pointed out the propaganda of it -he HAD to see it as a show host to tear the subject of it open...

If a cop tells yousomeone is a crook, would you say'I have to see them commit a crime first'?
I put my trust in the better of the lot-not a swayed O'Reilly or Limbaugh.

But that's me,on this matter.
 

saver

Michael Moore does nothing in his films Fox News doesn't do every evening all evening.  Michael Moore favors the left, so the right-wing harps on every inconsistancy and every conveniently left-out fact.  That's OK with me.  I've done the same with Michael Moore's work.  However, the right-wing doesn't do the same for right-wing disinformation.  In fact, when caught in lies, as Bill O'Reilly, Brit Hume, Sean Hannity are all the time, they and their defenders only engage in ad hominem attacks.

Michael Moore does nothing in his films Fox News doesn't do every evening all evening.  Michael Moore favors the left, so the right-wing harps on every inconsistancy and every conveniently left-out fact.  That's OK with me.  I've done the same with Michael Moore's work.  However, the right-wing doesn't do the same for right-wing disinformation.  In fact, when caught in lies, as Bill O'Reilly, Brit Hume, Sean Hannity are all the time, they and their defenders only engage in ad hominem attacks.
Moore LIES...Politicians LIE.....it's a TIE :-\\

Moore LIES...Politicians LIE.....it's a TIE :-\\

No tie.  When policians LIE...people DIE!

As I've listened but not a fan...what ARE the Sean Hannity lies...I hear him talk about how Al Franken LIED about him in his book...so if THE subject is saying the person lied writing on them, where's the writers defense...Franken may like to lie to add to the hoopla...but what lies have YOU been made aware of from Hannity? In case I ever will confront him?? 

As I've listened but not a fan...what ARE the Sean Hannity lies...I hear him talk about how Al Franken LIED about him in his book...so if THE subject is saying the person lied writing on them, where's the writers defense...Franken may like to lie to add to the hoopla...but what lies have YOU been made aware of from Hannity? In case I ever will confront him??   

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020826.html

No tie.  When policians LIE...people DIE!
Great line, Smart Max! Classic!

                                         The Church of St. Michael Moore

At the democratic convention, screams erupted at the very mention of his name.  Thousands waited for hours just to hear him speak.  No, not the democratic nominee, John Kerry.  No the object of adulation was the odious Michael Moore, director of the deceitful ''Fahrenheit 9/11.''

Yes the left-wing conspiracy film.  It's an asylum-quality portrait of a ''criminal'' President Bush in cahoots with his ''daddy,'' oil buddies, Richard Cheney, Halliburton, Enron, Carlyle group, the bin Ladin family, Saudi princes, and eeevil corporations, all motivated by greed.  Yes this was the same guy sitting next to former President Jimmy Carter at the DNC.  The same guy who wants Iraq to beat America in the war.  The same guy who recently called Americans ''possibly the dumbest people on the planet.''  Who called President Bush ''the obvious villain,'' ''an idiot,'' and ''a hate-triot.''

Note the press Moore garnered:

''The biggest star in Boston'' -Reuters
''A sizzling presence'' -USA Today
''I'm standing in a room full of Moore fanatics, who say Moore is their Elvis.'' -The New York Sun
''On fire.'' -The Los Angeles Times
''You're the rock star of the DNC.'' -Good Morning America producer, after kissing Moore's ring.

Moore seems to believe he will actully have an effect on the November elections: ''If I can make a small contribution to backing up a U-Haul truck to the White House and moving President Bush out, I will feel I have made a contribution,'' he told The Los Angeles Times.  Yet polls show that the 9% of the electorate who have seen ''Fahrenheit 9/11'' are overwhelmingly democrat anyway, which means Moore is only preaching to the choir, the loony left choir that is, for whom Bush-hating is a religion.

Instead of repudiating this wacko fringe flock, the democratic party has decided to keep faith with Moore's amen corner.  And with ''Fahrenheit 9/11,'' Saint Michael has provided them a church in which to worship.

             
Note the press Moore garnered:

''The biggest star in Boston'' -Reuters


Moore seems to believe he will actully have an effect on the November elections: ''If I can make a small contribution to backing up a U-Haul truck to the White House and moving President Bush out, I will feel I have made a contribution,'' he told The Los Angeles Times. 
The Boston Globe should've said Fattest
He definately had an effect on me. He solidified MY belief that he is a jerk who actually thinks he's "All that" and can sway voters....therefore I am even more determined to cancel out 1 liberal vote for Kerry with a vote for Bush.
As far as being a member of his little church...I'd be proud to be ex-communicated :)

Reuters should've said Fattest
He definately had an effect on me. He solidified MY belief that he is a jerk who actually thinks he's "All that" and can sway voters....therefore I am even more determined to cancel out 1 liberal vote for Kerry with a vote for Bush.
As far as being a member of his little church...I'd be proud to be ex-communicated :)


You're right!  Reuters was correct in calling Moore the BIGGEST star in Boston.

And I would love to be ex-communicated as well.

You're right!  Reuters was correct in calling Moore the BIGGEST start in Boston.

And I would love to be ex-communicated as well.

Most Americans are overweight.  If Moore was a right-winger, you would say he's like a regular guy.  If Moore looked like an Olympic athlete and made a point of of it, you'd say he was out of touch with the average red state American, who is "perfectly happy to be slightly overweight, a little underpaid," according the odious David Brooks.  Of course, we all know a great deal of these Americans are like Michael Moore, hugely overweight, and--unlike Michael Moore--seriously underpaid.

I think the reason the Right gets so steamed at Michael Moore is his great success both print and cinema. 

You know, another celebrity beside Linda Ronstadt who said everyone should see "Fahrenheit 911" is Mr. NASCAR himself, Dale Earnhardt, Jr.  He took his entire crew to his the movie!  He said so to the press, unsolicited.  If Mr. Earnhardt had given a ringing endorsement to Bush, and cursed the liberals, Fox News would have courted him.  I don't recall Fox--or any other broadcast outfit--inviting him on to talk about his enthusiasm for "Fahrenheit 911." 

Most Americans are overweight.  If Moore was a right-winger, you would say he's like a regular guy.  If Moore looked like an Olympic athlete and made a point of of it, you'd say he was out of touch with the average red state American, who is "perfectly happy to be slightly overweight, a little underpaid," according the odious David Brooks.  Of course, we all know a great deal of these Americans are like Michael Moore, hugely overweight, and--unlike Michael Moore--seriously underpaid.




Oh sure, ignore my piece on ''Fahrenheit 9/11'' and The Church of St. Michael Moore, and focus in on we I called Moore big.

Oh sure, ignore my piece on ''Fahrenheit 9/11'' and The Church of St. Michael Moore, and focus in on we I called Moore big.

I have already disgusted the aforementioned points of thy sarcastic diatribe in previous posts!
:D

I got some Moore quotes for anyone who may be attending the church of St. Michael Moore (see what he really thinks of Americans):

"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told." -- Michael Moore, October 2003

If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California - these were places that voted AGAINST Bush! -- Michael Moore, September 12, 2001

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." --Michael Moore on his website

"(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.” --Michael Moore in Great Britain, Castigating his countrymen, quoted in The Mirror

"The dumbest Brit here is smarter than the smartest American". -- Michael Moore At London’s Roundhouse Theater

"Should such an ignorant people (Americans) lead the world?" -- Michael Moore in an open letter to the people of Germany

"You know in my town the small businesses that everyone wanted to protect? They were the people that supported all the right-wing groups. They were the Republicans in the town, they were in the Kiwanas, the Chamber of Commerce - people that kept the town all white. The small hardware salesman, the small clothing store salespersons, Jesse the Barber who signed his name three different times on three different petitions to recall me from the school board. F--- all these small businesses - f--- 'em all! Bring in the chains. The small businesspeople are the rednecks that run the town and suppress the people. F--- 'em all. That's how I feel." -- Michael Moore

"White people scare the crap out of me. … I have never been attacked by a black person, never been evicted by a black person, never had my security deposit ripped off by a black landlord, never had a black landlord … never been pulled over by a black cop, never been sold a lemon by a black car salesman, never seen a black car salesman, never had a black person deny me a bank loan, never had a black person bury my movie, and I've never heard a black person say, 'We're going to eliminate ten thousand jobs here - have a nice day!'" --Michael Moore

"It was when Moore went into a rant about how the passengers on the planes on 11 September were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody." -- From an article by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown describing a Michael Moore show in London

"The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich." --Michael Moore

"I think (Bin Laden is under the protective watch of) the United States, I think our government knows where he is and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon." -- Michael Moore in an interview with Bob Costas

---WHAT A GREAT GUY, HUH?