# Did you see it: Fahrenheit 9/11 ?



## Phoenix44 (Jun 26, 2004)

So now that the movie's actually out, did any of you see it?  I did.  Comments?


----------



## Spud (Jun 26, 2004)

I didn't know it opened until we got to the Theatre last night. We saw _Super Size Me_ as planned. Will see it F 9/11 weekend though.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 26, 2004)

I'm always about two weeks behind (or more) on movies I want to see, due to work, laziness, etc.  Fahrenheit 9/11 did sell out here last night, though.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 26, 2004)

Well, I had every intention of seeing the movie, but unfortunately only one of the four theatres in this town is willing to play the documentary, so it was of course sold out when we got there.  

Ahhh, don't you love right-wing politicians?  They're just so embracing of criticism.


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 26, 2004)

Documentary or propaganda? I would think that documentary would need some semblance of impartiality. I could be wrong. What would the reaction have been if some right wing director made a film about Iraq and its links to 9-11/terrorism as justification for the war? I wouldnt blindly accept anything on TV or the movie screen as truth. Theres obviously a bias here. That of course dosent mean there is no truth in the film either...........


----------



## Spud (Jun 26, 2004)

Of course there is bias,  documentaries are full of bias - there's a big difference between movie making and reporting let alone good journalism.


----------



## sma_book (Jun 26, 2004)

Yes, just saw it.

It definately had a bias.

It definately had an agenda.

I was very pleased at its accessible eloquence on both points.

The theater had a pretty good crowd of ~150 or so people for the 11:10am show. There were lots of good discussions coming out of the theater, including the one I had with my daughters. 

Regardless of whether my kids end up with a 'conservative' or 'liberal' bias, I want them to grow up with a critical eye, so that they can try to discern what is the truth for themselves; that they can weed out the nuggets of gold from both sides of the argument and discard the packaged rhetoric. 

Facts by themselves are impartial. Facts should be woven together to get understanding of the whole. Unfortunately, we have some really bad 'weavers' out there who consistently omit critical threads and are blind to the holes in the fabric(action  

Michael Moore definately has some rhetoric, but he asks many very good questions. The wonderful thing about our country is that we have the ability to question our leaders, and expect them to give an account of themselves. From what I hear, we invaded Iraq to give them that right - among many other things.  

Regards,
- Sheryl


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 26, 2004)

Well, no doubt Michael Moore has an opinion, but this movie is not all about opinion. 

For example, if you doubt the photo of Prince Bandar and GW holding hands, and photos of George HW Bush socializing with the Saudis, and the passenger lists of the Saudis, including the Bin Laden family, who were spirited away on 9/13/01, you can also read all about it in Unger's "House of Bush, House of Saud." 

That book, incidentally, is *footnoted*, so if you also doubt Unger, you can check the references for yourself. 

And if you doubt Unger, you can also read Woodward's "Plan of Attack," which basically corroborates both the movie and the Unger book. And Richard Clarke's book...he was a counter-terrorism expert for Republican AND Democratic administrations, so he may not have the same alleged agenda as Michael Moore.

And you should read those books, just in case the movie wasn't enough to convince you that sheer greed was the motivating factor behind the Iraq invasion, and that the invasion was in the works even before Bush was inaugurated. 

Remember, the polls show that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators.

I thought it was a very powerful movie. I was in tears.


----------



## sma_book (Jun 26, 2004)

Thank-you Phoenix, I never meant to imply that the movie was all opinion; I like to think (and am sorry to think) that I am more aware than most of what the facts are in this particular situation. However, by acknowledging that there is some opinion in there, I would hope to get passed that first level of debate that is bound to ensue. 

Can't you just predict the thread postings now?

"Michael Moore has an agenda!!!"

"Yes he does."

And what really is the substantive point here? It would be better to have dialogs on the more meaty points other than this one. 

I am just concerned that when it comes to politics and government, people find one reason to dismiss whole trains of thought; that people will disregard everything Michael Moore has to say *because* he has an opinion. I personally can't quite get my brain around the argument "I don't like the person so everything they think or argue is wrong" Sort of reminds me of a bunch of second graders at recess. That seems to be the political process lately however. 

Kind of spooky, I think.

As I absolutely know that the news media, politicos, and columnists all have bias, I want to be aware of as many views as possible; to know the opponent so to speak. Reading the news and dailies from other countries is also pretty enlightening.

Cheers,
- Sheryl


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 26, 2004)

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound irritated. I'm not irritated.  I'M MAD AS HELL!!!  (But not at you, Sheryl.)


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 26, 2004)

sma_book said:
			
		

> As I absolutely know that the news media, politicos, and columnists all have bias, I want to be aware of as many views as possible; to know the opponent so to speak. Reading the news and dailies from other countries is also pretty enlightening.l


 At the risk of being tangential, I kind of link how news media/columnists in other countries do it... they announce their biases up front, and still try to perform journalism.  For instance, in the UK, the Guardian has a bit of an avowed "liberal" stance, the Economist a "conservative" one, and so on.  In both cases, though, I often count on their journalism and op-eds to be clearer than most.

 Getting back to Moore, it does make me sad when people dismiss him immediately simply because they know he is an avowed opponent of the current administration.  I try to listen to as many sources as possible before making decisions.

 Chris Rock had something funny to say in his most recent HBO special about people who make decisions without hearing all the points of view.


----------



## Eldritch Knight (Jun 26, 2004)

That was a powerful documentary if I've ever seen one. We had a packed auditorium that filled up 30 min before showtime. There were no less than 5 times when the entire audience cheered during the film. There was this family sitting behind me that got so emotional about it that they left the theater in tears when Michael Moore was interviewing the dead soldier's mother. For the record, I live right in Northern VA, about 20 min away from DC.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 27, 2004)

*Link: Moore Lies*

*Link: Moore Exposed*


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 27, 2004)

To be honest, I can't say that I'm 100% sorry for that woman.  I mean, I know how much it must hurt to lose someone like that (I have been fortunate enough not to have to experience that kind of a loss yet), but c'mon, she'd been gung-ho about her kids joining the military so much, and even pushed her son into moving on with it when she described how he'd had second thoughts about what he was doing.  Then when, lo and behold, her son dies while in combat, she begins to decry the administration and the military and feels cheated.  

I'm not saying that the war was justified or that the administration wasn't responsible, but seriously, when she'd been pushing her children into joining the military so much, I can't help but think she is being a bit hypocritical in suddenly "seeing the light" once it was her son that died.  

I know, I'm a cold, heartless bastard.  How dare I criticize someone's emotions.  Sorry.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 27, 2004)

The, "Moore Lies," link offers no evidence whatsoever that Michael Moore made up anything--only claims of disagreement, including the remark that the website offers a, "distinctly right-wing slant." Moreover, the site includes an adoring article about a 17-year old who claims that Hezbollah supported Moore's film....and notes that for some reason, Moore walked away from this kid's assertions. 

Which is, last I checked, what martial artists are in fact enjoined to do: walk away from stupidity, walk away from a fight.

The real objections against Moore are these: a) he's successful; b) he's pretty good at exposing how silly and dangerous Bush looks; c) some folks see the world differently, and believe that he should have no right whatsoever to speak. 

I note that "Sharp Phil, " et al seem to have no problems with absurd and ridiculous behavior on the part of, say, G. Gordon Liddy (remember the infamous, "Shoot the ATF in the head," radio broadcasts?), or Dick Cheney's "Go **** yourself," to Sen. Pat Leahy.

And oh yes...the next right-wing bonehead who cites Mark Twain, as the "Moore Lies," site does, would do well to actually read a little of Mark Twain so they have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

I recommend beginning with, "The Gilded Age," (satire about capitalists and thee corruption of governments), "Extract From Captain Stormfield's Visit To Heaven," (satire about Americans' narcissistic and presumptuous views on their importance generally and their religious fantasies in particular), "To The People Sitting in Darkness,' (satire about 'native,' confusion over the USA's colonialism).

But hey, don't let reality intrude.

Ooooh, real pity that somebody like Moore simply disagrees with you. Why not just complain about that, and explain why you think what you think, rather than relying on gimcrack websites?

I know, I know. Much easier to try personal insults, accusations of "un-Americanness," and goofball claims that a documentary film openly asserting a particular viewpoint is a documentary film openly asserting a particular viewpoint.


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 27, 2004)

I felt it was an honest film. Although, I was disappointed Moore didn't go into more detail about how the military-industrial complex is screwing our troops and how our own Congressmen on Capitol Hill are helping them screw our boots on the ground. It's a sad story and deserving much more coverage than it gets.

Alot of these guys are just basically kids fresh out of high school. Of course, there's going to be alot of gung-ho types and then the reflection and disillusionment that real combat experience can bring out. It's not so fun to kill people as it is in the movies. 

Personally, I think Moore let Bush off pretty easy on this one and I'm no big fan of Moore, myself. The film is, of course, as partisan as can be, which he never denied to begin with. The Bush family-Saudi Royals connections were stretched about as far as he could take it, but poses some rather interesting questions that should be asked. All in all, he did get his point across and that's what's important.

No matter where you're at on the political spectrum you're going to come out of this with a new perspective or an old perspective reinforced. It's damning and it's the truth. Truth, my friends, hurts.


A lot of the topics that he covered deserved a lot more coverage, but i guess that's what he had to sacrifice to get everything in.

Here's a book recommendation: Tom Clancy's new book "BATTLE READY" with and about General Anthony Zinni (USMC), if you remember he was the most outspoken general against the war into Iraq.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 27, 2004)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can keep reading that ******** "Moore Lies" page.  It's twisting Moore's points like nobody's business.  A brief example: Moore's point in showing the president vacationing wasn't to say that liberal presidents never went on vacation, but to point out that Bush was vacationing for I believe it was 42% of his time in office.  Just a thought.


----------



## Nightingale (Jun 27, 2004)

I and about ten friends, liberal and conservative, are all going to see it today.  

What I do find very...interesting... is that most people criticizing the movie haven't actually seen it.

If you want to criticize something, you ought to know what you're talking about.  Otherwise, you're just parroting others' opinions.  Spend the five bucks and go see a matinee.  Hell, if you hate the movie, a lot of theatre managers will give you your money back if you complain loudly enough, so heck, it might not even cost you anything.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 27, 2004)

Here is a rather mainstream anti-moore site for discussion purposes

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

I saw the movie last night.  I thought it was powerful and influential.  The critical part of me is attempting to do some fact-checking though...


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 27, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> If you want to criticize something, you ought to know what you're talking about.  Otherwise, you're just parroting others' opinions.  Spend the five bucks and go see a matinee.  Hell, if you hate the movie, a lot of theatre managers will give you your money back if you complain loudly enough, so heck, it might not even cost you anything.



The thing is, if you know that a guy is willing to supress the truth in order to attack others, then it is kind of silly to spend money to see what you know will be a warped, twisted, version of events.

Here is an example from this thread,



> For example, if you doubt the photo of Prince Bandar and GW holding hands, and photos of George HW Bush socializing with the Saudis, and the passenger lists of the Saudis, including the Bin Laden family, who were spirited away on 9/13/01,



Ok, so the head of one state (and his family) socializes with the head of another state. It is called diplomacy. You can see lots of pictures of Bush and Chirac together, and they hate each others guts. You can't find any pictures of them snarling at each other. So the pictures really tell nothing _in context._ Heck you can find a picture of the Dali Lama and the head of the cult that gassed the Tokyo subways holding hands just like Bush and Prince Bandar.

And Wesley Clarke (hardly a Bush fan) testified months ago in front of the 9-11 commision that Bush had nothing to do with the Saudis and Bin Laden family being allowed to leave the country. Moore does not acknoledge this in his film, and he has made no mention of it AFAIK because it would be less damning of the guy he wants to throw out of office.

So, when you know that someone is so driven by an agenda that he would take only that which makes his targets look bad and not even acknowledge something as signifigent as Clark's testimony, you have to ask if it is worth spending hard earned cash to see more twisted facts. Unless you know the entire picture (and if you do- why see the movie), you set yourself up to be led around by the nose by someone with a track record of deceit like Moore.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 27, 2004)

Until you see the movie, all your perceptions will remain second hand.  Are you willing to trust those perceptions over those that you witness with your own two eyes?  How do you know that what you hear is not just the ranting of some conservative whackjob?  How do you know if what you hear about the movie is an accurate representation?

My take on this is that whether or not you are for or against this movie, you should go and see it.  Your beliefs should not be something you put in a dark place and never examine.  Maybe the film strengthens what you believe.  Maybe it challenges it.  To criticize the film without ever seeing it is intellectually dishonest.

 :asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 27, 2004)

> My take on this is that whether or not you are for or against this movie, you should go and see it. Your beliefs should not be something you put in a dark place and never examine. Maybe the film strengthens what you believe. Maybe it challenges it. To criticize the film without ever seeing it is intellectually dishonest.


Very nice.  

I plan to see it this week, and launch into discussion afterwards.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 27, 2004)

sma_book said:
			
		

> It definately had aty to question our leaders, and expect them to give an account of themselves. From what I hear, we invaded Iraq to give them that right - among many other things.
> 
> Regards,
> - Sheryl



That's supposedly the case, Sheryl...but that doesn't mean it was strategically wise, given our resources.  I keep thinking of the tens of billions we've spent and wonder how far that would have gone towards energy research.

That said, I applaud you on your attititude towards educating your kids.

I plan on seeing the flick as soon as I get a Doctor's clearance.  I'd have gone this weekend, but was told to lay with my leg up and take antibiotics.  Maybe next weekend.

Bowling For Columbine and Roger and Me are next.  I'll probably see The Passion, too.  This will be the summer of controversial films for me.  I may even buy Moore's books.  I still don't like him...but when people tell me NOT to see something, I am going to go see it.  If they tell me not to read it, I'm going to read it.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 27, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And Wesley Clarke (hardly a Bush fan) testified months ago in front of the 9-11 commision that Bush had nothing to do with the Saudis and Bin Laden family being allowed to leave the country.


 This is the second post in which you've confused Wesley Clark (former General ) and Richard Clarke (former head of counterterrorism, and the person who testified in front of the 9-11 commission). This leads me to believe that your ability to discern the "entire picture" may be somewhat limited. 

 Moreover, knowing "the entire picture" would make you far MORE likely, at the very least, to question anything that this administration tells you, whether or not you're interested in "Fahrenheit 9-11".

 To answer your point about "why would see this movie", I would put it this way: you continue to quote attack sources that give their opinion of what Moore "was getting at", and try to debunk it point by point. Without seeing the film, how do you know that these sources simply aren't manipulating *you*?

 Of course Moore's film is biased; it's a polemic which attacks the policies he disagrees with, and the President he wants to see out of office. The value of his individual points, to my mind, can only be evaluated fairly and honestly by actually seeing the film and doing research myself. I don't trust anyone, especially the rabid right, to do that for me.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 27, 2004)

sma_book said:
			
		

> From what I hear, we invaded Iraq to give them that right - among many other things.


 I guess it depends on who you listen to, and when you listen to them... when we invaded, "liberating the people" wasn't the reason used. 

 Glad you had a positive experience and brought your kids out to see it.  Teaching them to evaluate and think for themselves will make them the ideal Americans, in my opinion, no matter what their political perspective.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 27, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> To answer your point about "why would see this movie", I would put it this way: you continue to quote attack sources that give their opinion of what Moore "was getting at", and try to debunk it point by point. Without seeing the film, how do you know that these sources simply aren't manipulating *you*?
> 
> Of course Moore's film is biased; it's a polemic which attacks the policies he disagrees with, and the President he wants to see out of office. The value of his individual points, to my mind, can only be evaluated fairly and honestly by actually seeing the film and doing research myself. I don't trust anyone, especially the rabid right, to do that for me.



Bravo.  I've made that mistake.  I won't do it again.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 27, 2004)

> The real objections against Moore are these: a) he's successful; b) he's pretty good at exposing how silly and dangerous Bush looks; c) some folks see the world differently, and believe that he should have no right whatsoever to speak.



The real objections to Moore are these:  A) He's a hypocrite;  B) he's a liar who has no problem manipulating the truth to achieve his ends.



> I note that "Sharp Phil, " et al seem to have no problems with absurd and ridiculous behavior on the part of, say, G. Gordon Liddy (remember the infamous, "Shoot the ATF in the head," radio broadcasts?), or Dick Cheney's "Go **** yourself," to Sen. Pat Leahy.



I note that you approve of kicking puppies and sacrificing babies to Satan, Mr. Robertson.  Oh, wait, you mean you've said nothing of the kind?  That's interesting, given that I've never made public statements excusing Mr. Liddy or Mr. Cheney for their statements.

Condescension and arrogance are not substitutes for reasoned debate, Mr. Robertson.  The links you so casually dismiss contain many links to write-ups of Mr. Moore's problems with the truth, among them these:

*http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html/*

*http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233/*

*http://www.gunowners.org/opmooretb.htm*

*http://moorelies.com/news/specials/latimes_moore.cfm*


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 27, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Ok, so the head of one state (and his family) socializes with the head of another state. It is called diplomacy.


Do you know the Spanish word for 'Bush' ... I believe it is 'Arbusto'. This is also the name of one of George W. Bush's failed businesses. Approximately $50,000.00 of Arbusto's startup money came from the Saudi Royal family. 

That is not diplomacy. 

It is hedging your bet.

Mike

P.S. To those many that keep labeling this film as 'Partisan', I would like to remind you that Michael Moore is *not* a Democrat. Michael Moore did* not* vote for Al Gore. There is nothing partisan about this film. It is an attack on George W. Bush's Presidency, which is an entirely different thing.


----------



## Littledragon (Jun 27, 2004)

I have yet to see the film. All I can say is that I don't want Bush to be re elected president. All he has done is focus on the war and fighting terrorism nothing else.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 27, 2004)

In the past month or so, I've read every book I could get my hands on about the events leading up to 9/11 and on the Bush Administration. When I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, there was very little that surprised me, because I'd read about it in multiple sources. That means to me that what Moore showed is pretty well documented, whether or not it reflects his particular bias. If you don't believe him, go read about it elsewhere...and that doesn't mean hit the blogs and listen to Limbaugh...it means actually read about it.

The remarkable thing that Moore did was to lay it out in front of us in a digestible and sometimes entertaining form for people who DON'T have the time or inclination to do their own research.

The one thing I had never seen before, besides the actual Iraq footage, was the filming of Bush's inaugural parade. Geez, who knew?

And for the poster who said s/he doesn't feel 100% sympathetic to the mother who lost her son in the war:  Unless you know what it feels like to bury your child, please please don't say that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 27, 2004)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> *http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html/*
> 
> *http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233/*
> 
> ...



Do have more links that deal with _this _ particular movie?  Have you seen it?  Can you tell us which parts you didn't like and which you did?  Why?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 27, 2004)

Dear "Sharp Phil:"

First off, to you it's, "Dr. Robertson," or Robert. I'd prefer Robert, but hey, choose or snooze.

Second off, precisely how is Mr. Moore a hypocrite? details, please. Preferably something that isn't a citation from, "Atlas Shrugged." I notice that you're eager to blow off anything I might say as dismissive or, "condescending," or whatever, but you never quite seem to come up with facts or reasoned argument. Imagine my surprise.

Third around, you still don't seem to have any facts or serious reasoning--just links to assorted sites. 

Fourth off, let me explain. I, "casually dismiss," because I see no evidence of serious intellectual opposition. The sites you cite offer such vital, important, remarkable, informed comment as this: "Mr. Moore is naturally a big hit among the French." Ooooh wow. Now there's the sort of thing I've never heard before...oh wait a minnit, there were those 1, 248 times (yes, I can count that high...I simply take my shoes off) since 1976--when I first heard that les Francais has a serious affection for Poe, Jerry Lewis, et le hot-dog.

Et le cinq: since Moore's so easily refuted, why not simply refute him yourself, directly? Offer a few obvious falsities of his; attack a few clear errors, misstatements, or outright lies. Then, you're all set. Funnily enough, I don't seem to see that, eh?

Sixth, like dude, the problem I cited with Cheney et al was this: you seem quite vexed with whatever it is that Moore's up to that you don't care for (specifics, please) yet you don't seem to have the least issue with quite obvious and easily-documented matters such as the Vice President of the United States becoming so incapable of civility and respect that he tells a long-serving senator who's holding out a hand to shake to, "Go **** yourself," on the floor of our nation's Senate.

Call me old-fashioned, call be traditional, call me one of those wackos who believes in respect for the democratic institutions of this country--hell, call me somebody who believes that grownups should have a tad bit of self-control (wait a minnit, what about martial artists?), but I think there's something wrong with that. 

Personally, I'll take my chances with us other wacko liberals. (I'm not actually one, but that seems about the limits of political comprehension on the parts of some.) me n' Gregory Peck, Burt Lancaster, and Gene Kelly. Any day.

But thanks for playing.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 27, 2004)

I haven't seen it yet, but plan on it at some point.

My problem with Moore at this time is what I've heard of his poor choice in words when discussing 9/11 families.  

Here is 1 review I found at artvoice.com.  There is additional commentary in the original.


> Fahrenheit 9/11
> review by M.Faust
> 
> A survey released last weekend reports that,
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 27, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> This is the second post in which you've confused Wesley Clark (former General ) and Richard Clarke (former head of counterterrorism, and the person who testified in front of the 9-11 commission). This leads me to believe that your ability to discern the "entire picture" may be somewhat limited.



Or that I am bad with names and posted before I had a cup of coffee.

So, how does the fact that Clarke cleared Bush of what Moore accuses him of, and yet Moore makes not acknowledgement of it, fail to convince you that there will be many, many more twisted distortions of the truth in this film? A political ad I don't have to pay for. To shell out cash to see this peice of trash is just wasted money. Moore is a hyporcrite for claiming that the Bush administration is not telling the whole truth when he suppresses any source that might clear the object of his attack.

Take a look at his complaint about how there was too few troops in Afghanistan. Anyone care to talk about the massive amounts of logistics needed to field even one soldier? How about the difficulties in supplying troops when there is no friendly port? How about the geo-political problems of placing troops in, or moving supplies through, Pakistan? Anyone care to remember just how long it took to build up enough troops to invade Iraq and the problems with terrorist attacks on out troops in Kuwait? That was with bases in the country, pre- positioned suppiles, a good harbor, decent airfileds, a poplace that hated the goverment next door, and the Kuwaiti goverment not having to worry about military coups. Compare that with Pakistan. Ugh!

So, you wanted to move more troops into Afghanistan? How? When you take a cold, hard look at all the problems involved (including what Hussein might do if he thought American was too busy to deal with him) you can come up with a multi- hour documentary on the subject. But let me guess, the words "logistics" and such never came up in the movie, eh?  :uhyeah: 

And that is just _one_ thing Moore threw out in this movie.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 27, 2004)

STILL waiting to read the slightest evidence that Moore's got his facts wrong, or made stuff up.

The argument about inadequate forces, by the way, he's taking almost entirely from the military.

As for the word, "logistics," the general theory at this point is that, queerly enough, the word also never came up while our esteemed President and his rah-rah boys were discussing either Iraq, or the little matter of having major US forces spread out all over the world.

And another minor point: about the commonest professional critique of Bush, Cheney et al is that they are far too interested in high-tech weaponry, and far too ignorant of what it actually takes to field a modern army. This appears to be why the technology budget is going up, while these clowns cut budgets for veteran's hospitals and extend the tours of presently-serving soldiers.

STILL waiting for the documentation of Moore's lies, or even his errors.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 27, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> STILL waiting for the documentation of Moore's lies, or even his errors.



Well, in case you missed it the first few times it has been mentioned...

Moore tries to stick in people's minds the idea that Bush intervened to let the Saudis and Bin Laden family go.

Clarke (no friend of the president) testified _before_ the movie came out at the 9-11 commision hearings that Bush had no part in that decision.

Moore did not drop his accusations or even acknowledge Clarke's testimony under oath.

That is deception and lies. There is a difference between trying to present facts to convince people of your case, and knowingly deceiving others. Moore is like the guy who tells you he saw your girlfriend on vacation with another guy and fails to mention that he knows that it was a family vacation and the guy is her brother.

You can't trust someone who would stoop to that level. You have to know all the facts, and I doubt many people who watch the movie are going to check out all the facts behind all the accusations he makes.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As for the word, "logistics," the general theory at this point is that, queerly enough, the word also never came up while our esteemed President and his rah-rah boys were discussing either Iraq, or the little matter of having major US forces spread out all over the world.



That theory much be all the rage with those that theorize about how the Jews that worked at the WTC did not show up on 9-11 because we seem to have done fairly well with logistics in the Iraq war. We did out- run the supply lines a few times, causing the troops to stop. But that was because they were moving so fast as Hussien's troops just got trashed.

But that is another point that should have been mentioned in my last post. When 9-11 hit, thanks to commitments made prior to the current administration, American troops were already spread thin in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. So getting more troops on a short notice becomes even more difficult.


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 28, 2004)

Great film critique, thanks for posting that, Phil. Politics aside, I thought the film was very well done. This film does have an agenda, a very obvious one. Moore's agenda is to get Bush out of office. With that in mind you already know you're going to see a very biased film. But, going back on the article above, I'd like to ask some questions to get some information from the film verified:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group. *(So do they? Is there a bin Laden investor in the Carlyle Group?)*


2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States. *(In the film, it's not that the Saudis have a large amount of investment in the US, but in the Bush family. Is this true?)*


3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests. *(In the film there's footage of Taliban "ambassadors" visiting the US. It also states that the current head of Afghanistan, Karzai, and his other officials were once consultants for UNOCAL. Is this true?)*

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape. *(11,000 to be exact.)*

5) The film also states that of all the Senators and Representatives in Congress, only one among them has a child serving in Iraq in our Military.* Is this True?*

6) Also, in the film, Moore shows footages of Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell in 2000 (or maybe early 2001), stating in news conferences that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was of course well before 9/11. *So, how did Iraq obtain WMDs in a span of two years?*


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 28, 2004)

First off, Mr. Roley, it's not, "deception and lies," to have a different interpretation of facts. 

Secondly, are you arguing that the President has no ties to the house of Sa'ud? Appears that he does...or were the photos made up? Then too, there's the point that you seem very upset that Presidents Clinton and Carter negotiated with such folks...and yet when Bush does it, it's just a-OK. This suggests that you haven't yet identified a problem with facts; you've identified your disagreement over interpretations.

Third...last time I checked, I was under the impression that our leaders were supposed to be pragmatic--you know, as in aware of reality about our committments, and wary about committing our troops beyond what was possible. 

Fourth, last time I checked, Bill Clinton did not order our troops into Afghanistan. Nor did he order support and training for the Taliban, or Bin Laden, or (for that matter) Saddam Hussein. Who in this country did? One brief hint---the name of their political party begins with an, "R."

Fifth, I see a lot of, "is like," in your post. Reasoning by simile scarcely demonstrates some sort of distortion of facts.

Disagreement? Fine, OK, no problem. Have at it. It's just that not everybody who disagrees with you is Satan, or an America-basher, or whatever. Nor are they hypocrites. Our country, I'm glad to say, has a long, proud history of dissent and disagreement. If you can't stand that, I suggest you move elsewhere....someplace where the powers that be get to enforce patriotism and assent...like, say, Iran or North Korea. 

In other words, love democracy or leave it. Unfortunately, democracy means that people don't agree. 

Nice little slur about, "Jews," by the way, nice little offhand attempt at an accusation of anti-Semitism. Generally speaking, of course, you might want to check out Freud's, "metapsychological," essays, written 1914-1918. As he put it, apropos of such accusations, generally speaking the one who smelt it dealt it.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

Joe Eccleston said:
			
		

> But, going back on the article above, I'd like to ask some questions to get some information from the film verified:



And if you can not get it verified, and the only sources seem to be conspiracy theory nuts, are you going to treat what Moore said as a lie, or as the truth?

It is very interesting to me that none of the "liberal" media seems to want to touch these accusations by Moore with a ten foot pole. It seems easy to believe that maybe they know that there are explinations for what superficially seems to be unflattering of the president and do not want to jepordize their reputations even if there is the chance of higher ratings and more money.


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 28, 2004)

> The real objections to Moore are these: A) He's a hypocrite; B) he's a liar who has no problem manipulating the truth to achieve his ends.


Argumentum ad Hominem (Attacking the Person): The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself.

Watch the movie, so you know what you're talking about.  Then discuss the contents in the film, without saying "Moore is a big fat liar".  If you have facts that counter the information he's presented point it out.

It's kind of silly when you rave about how Moore is biased and then direct us to links which are equally biased against Moore to support your claim that Moore is biased.  Circular.  Present your counter points, and convince us Moore is wrong.


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And if you can not get it verified, and the only sources seem to be conspiracy theory nuts, are you going to treat what Moore said as a lie, or as the truth?





			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> It is very interesting to me that none of the "liberal" media seems to want to touch these accusations by Moore with a ten foot pole. It seems easy to believe that maybe they know that there are explinations for what superficially seems to be unflattering of the president and do not want to jepordize their reputations even if there is the chance of higher ratings and more money.




Then you suspend judgment until you get more information.


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And if you can not get it verified, and the only sources seem to be conspiracy theory nuts, are you going to treat what Moore said as a lie, or as the truth?
> 
> It is very interesting to me that none of the "liberal" media seems to want to touch these accusations by Moore with a ten foot pole. It seems easy to believe that maybe they know that there are explinations for what superficially seems to be unflattering of the president and do not want to jepordize their reputations even if there is the chance of higher ratings and more money.


Then I suspend judgement until I get it verified, but I would become very suspicious as to why the questions I am asking are hard to answer, since they are after all very basic.

Why aren't your "conservative" media sources countering these points? It's very easy to call someone fat, greedy or a liar, but when someone asks you important questions that need answers, then it becomes difficult.  Watch the movie so you can join the discussion.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First off, Mr. Roley, it's not, "deception and lies," to have a different interpretation of facts.



When you know that what you say is not the whole truth, that there is evidence that blows your theory out of the water and you fail to even mention it, that is lies and deception. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Secondly, are you arguing that the President has no ties to the house of Sa'ud? Appears that he does...or were the photos made up? Then too, there's the point that you seem very upset that Presidents Clinton and Carter negotiated with such folks...and yet when Bush does it, it's just a-OK. This suggests that you haven't yet identified a problem with facts; you've identified your disagreement over interpretations.



Of course Bush, Carter, Clinton had ties with the house of Saud. So what is wrong with that since it is part of their job to deal with other nations heads? So why is Moore making such big deal about pictures taken with Bush, but not letting the world know that every president has had such pictures taken.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Third...last time I checked, I was under the impression that our leaders were supposed to be pragmatic--you know, as in aware of reality about our committments, and wary about committing our troops beyond what was possible.



Yep. When possible. And sometimes things force our hands. We shoudl never have agreed to things like Kosovo with our troops stretched as thing as they were. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Fourth, last time I checked, Bill Clinton did not order our troops into Afghanistan. Nor did he order support and training for the Taliban, or Bin Laden, or (for that matter) Saddam Hussein. Who in this country did? One brief hint---the name of their political party begins with an, "R."



Oh, you really do not know the subject matter do you? Same old story told a thousand times but with no basis in facts. For a guy who likes to intimidate that others are not as well read as you, you don't bother finding out the facts before making a post.

Here is the facts, the best, independent investigations into the matter say that the US never had any dealings with the Taliban or Bin Laden. During the war, there were groups who would have nothing to do with the infidels. People like Bin Laden doled out his money to keep them independent and not answerable to the US in return for money. The Taliban was founded in Pakistan, not America after the Soviet Union pulled out of Kabul and the US lost interest due to infighitng in the goverment. And the founding of the Taliban was a source of great friction between the US and Pakistan.

But remember what you tried to say about world leaders being "pragmatic"? So if we could still deal with Pakistan instead of making them a totally commited enemy, we did what we could. Same goes for just about every nation. Right now, we are still trying to deal with nations like Syria that are not the best friends, but are not complete enemies like Iran.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Nice little slur about, "Jews," by the way, nice little offhand attempt at an accusation of anti-Semitism. Generally speaking, of course, you might want to check out Freud's, "metapsychological," essays, written 1914-1918. As he put it, apropos of such accusations, generally speaking the one who smelt it dealt it.



Got you! I mentioned that because a while back you accused Ayn Rand of being an anti-semite. Turns out that she was a jew. I guess you kind of gave your reasonings for making that accusation a while back. 
 :asian:


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

Joe Eccleston said:
			
		

> Why aren't your "conservative" media sources countering these points?



There probably is some counters to the points out there that I am not aware of. Unfortunately, they probably involve long explinations detailing the whole picture instead of nice little sound bites like what Moore likes to use that more people are able to listen to.

For example, it is easy to put on a bunch of complaints and listings of the problems we had because we had less than a division in Afghanistan. It takes a lot more time to detail all the problems with international commitments, logistics and such in a way that people are not going to have their eyes glaze over. Heck, you need to talk about things as complex as the air field requirements for a plane able to carry an M1 Abrams, number and commitments of those assests, fuel consumption, etc just for ONE part of the problem.

The truth is sometimes complicated, but you can make false accusations short and sexy if you are not bound by facts.


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 28, 2004)

So, basically you have no answers and cannot provide me to links that might have answers.  You're unable to provide counters to Moore's points, except for calling them lies.  But, you go on pissing on the movie and the film maker.  Seems rather unproductive to me.  The best way to disprove Moore, is to offer undisputable facts that counter his claims.  So, far you have just succeeded on saying, these are lies, and the truth is much more complicated.  Tell us why they are "lies", enlighten us.  Because with a $21M plus opening weekend in just a handful of theatres around the country, this film's here to stay and it's changing a lot of people's minds about the current administration.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 28, 2004)

StraightRazor said:
			
		

> Documentary or propaganda? I would think that documentary would need some semblance of impartiality.



I expect the same from the phrase "Fair and balanced reporting" but you don't always get things as advertised.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

Joe Eccleston said:
			
		

> So, basically you have no answers and cannot provide me to links that might have answers.



I think I should remind you that you are looking for facts that support what Moore says and can not seem to be able to find any.

No responsible media source seems to want to support him and add details to his accusations. That should be somewhat telling in itself. 

It really should be on the people like Moore that spawn conspiracy theories to back them up and not for others to prove that somehow the guys from the Illuminati did not replace Donald Trump with a clone. But Moore in himself has proven that he is willing to play loose with the facts to meet his agenda. Without any independent media source, why bother considering what he accuses? If 60 Minutes does a story on the subject one way or another, THAT I would like to see. But if they do, then why bother seeing the film beforehand?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Anyone care to talk about the massive amounts of logistics needed to field even one soldier? How about the difficulties in supplying troops when there is no friendly port? How about the geo-political problems of placing troops in, or moving supplies through, Pakistan? Anyone care to remember just how long it took to build up enough troops to invade Iraq and the problems with terrorist attacks on out troops in Kuwait?


"Anyone care to talk about .... " .... Well, not really as part of this discussion. These are all excellent questions concerning the operation of the US Military. Seems to me that President Bush has declared an unending war against 'Terrorism' (whatever that means), and these questions would be good in the effectiveness of Bush's execution of that war.

Oddly, the invasion of Afghanistan actually had something to do with combatting Terrorists. 

Invading Iraq, because we have pre-positioned supplies, was rather silly, if it had nothing to do with Terrorism, don't you think?

Mike

P.S.


			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> (including what Hussein might do if he thought American was too busy to deal with him)


If you review what is known about the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (It's only about 80 pages, and neither President Bush or National Security Advisor Rice were able to read any more than the 'Executive Summary') you will learn that, according to the best sources, Saddam Hussein was not going to take any action to provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction *unless* he felt it was a last resort measure ... from, let's say, an invasion by US forces.

Thefore, by Invading Iraq, President Bush increased the likelyhood of Hussein hooking up with terrorists, and making the United States *less safe*.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Well, in case you missed it the first few times it has been mentioned... Moore tries to stick in people's minds the idea that Bush intervened to let the Saudis and Bin Laden family go.


You know, On September 13, 2001, I was *DRIVING A RENTAL CAR *from Newark, NJ to Nashua, NH because I could not get a seat on a plane. My scheduled flight was cancelled (Continental 1089 - Depart 7:50 PM).

At the time, I didn't know there were other planes in the air. Apparently, on the 13th, a few flights that were quickly grounded on the 11th, were allowed to complete their travel and several empty planes were allowed to fly to different airports.

And the Bin Laden family could assemble from various points around the country and leave. Regardless of what Moore tried to stick into some peoples' minds, it kind of irks me that they could get on a plane and I couldn't.

Mike


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Invading Iraq, because we have pre-positioned supplies, was rather silly, if it had nothing to do with Terrorism, don't you think?



Key word, "if". Some of us still believe that this action put some nations on notice that playing around with terrorists and saying that you could not be responsible was not going ot go over very well with the US. We have seen Lybia take the final few steps away from sponsering terrorism, Syria give some serious changes in policy, etc. Of course, this is not the type of thing a president would be able to say in the open without a lot of diplomatic flack and trouble with the world.




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> If you review what is known about the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (It's only about 80 pages, and neither President Bush or National Security Advisor Rice were able to read any more than the 'Executive Summary') you will learn that, according to the best sources, Saddam Hussein was not going to take any action to provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction *unless* he felt it was a last resort measure ... from, let's say, an invasion by US forces.



One source. There are others with different opinions. Among other things, there is the problem of Hussein wanting to continue to terrorize the rest of the middle east if given a chance. In essence, he tied down a lot of forces that could have been used in places like Afghanistan because if we moved them out of the area, he could have at least threatened to attack Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Oh, and such estimates have been wrong before. And govermental policy like thoseof Hussein can change. So, it is kind of like saying that you trust Hussein to do  the right, logical thing at any time in the future.

Personally, I think the guy is nuts enough to do anything. And we still do not know what he did with things like his anthrax.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Regardless of what Moore tried to stick into some peoples' minds, it kind of irks me that they could get on a plane and I couldn't.



It irks me that certain diplomats and foriegn nationals get out of parking tickets and such while I can not in America. But they do have their privlidges. And trying to keep some diplomats and such in a country beyond what we can prove to be needed is a sure fire way to cause massive international diplomatic melt down.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 28, 2004)

Tell ya what...

I'll read every posted critique of Moore's film listed here by Phil, Dan Roley, and whomever.  I promise I will.

I am also going to go see Moore's flick.

If I am so easily seduced by Moore's work, than the critiques posted here will not save me.  On the other hand, if the critiques posted here are sound and well reasoned, they may pull me back from that intellectual void...and I will not fall into the pit of woe and despair.

OR, on the other hand...it might be that I am not so easily influenced by either side of the argument, and possessing a reasonably sound mind I just might be able to judge for myself the merits or demerits of Moore's work, with input from the sources provided in this thread, of course, and others listed elsewhere.

But to do any of that, I HAVE TO SEE THE FLICK.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 28, 2004)

Don,


I will make two points here.

1. Cause & Effect. You are positing that because the Invasion of Iraq happened *before* Libia's change of stance concerning support of terrorism, that one had to do with the other. This is a logical falacy. Because A preceeds B, it does not follow that B was caused by A. Some with more knowledge than I have said Libia's change of position was brought about by years of diplomatic work by European countries eager to commerce with this oil rich Mediterrainian state.

2. I would say that the United States National Intelligence Estimate is not just 'One Source', but rather, THE DEFINATIVE SOURCE. If we are going to trust *any information* concerning the motives and activities of foreign countries, don't you think our primary input for policy decisions should be the best information the Government can provide? Who better than the CIA could provide our policy makers with appropriate information?

Mike


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don,
> 
> 
> I will make two points here.
> ...



No, I said that the last push was pretty much the invasion. And the things that are starting now with countries like Syria shutting down several terrorist offices are partly because of the invasion. Along with a whole lot of other things that we do not see so much of.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> 2. I would say that the United States National Intelligence Estimate is not just 'One Source', but rather, THE DEFINATIVE SOURCE.



But still a source among many. And we do not know what other sources that are classified may have had.

And there is still the matter of what else did Bush want to accomplish and th emessage he wanted to send that has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. But not ones he can talk about without causing problems. Heck, he got in trouble for just using the words "axis of evil," can you imagine what a real honest account of the world could do?

For instance, a while back in the Daily Yomiuri, Putin (not a fried of the war in Iraq) said that Russian intelligence services had warned the US that they had learned that Iraqi forces were still exploring terrorist strikes in the US after 9-11. That is not a US report, but not one you seem to hear a lot of.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> So, how does the fact that Clarke cleared Bush of what Moore accuses him of, and yet Moore makes not acknowledgement of it, fail to convince you that there will be many, many more twisted distortions of the truth in this film?


 I haven't seen the film, and I don't know, therefore, precisely *what* Moore accuses Bush of.  He may simply be complaining that the Bin Ladens were allowed to fly out.  He may be specifically complaining that the "big, bad, evil Gee Dubya let them fly away while cackling mightily".  Unless I actually *see* the film to determine that, and simplky take anti-Moore sites as gospel, I am letting people manipulate me.  I try not to do that.

 Secondly, I'm not at all unwilling to believe that there are twisted distortions in "Fahrenheit 9/11".  However, I *also* know that the Bush Administration *and* the mainstream news media also provide twisted distortions.  In this target-rich environment of liars and biased individuals, I feel that I have to gather as many different forms of input as possible and develop my own opinions.  This is why I even suffer through the occasional indignity of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  (Fox News, btw, has a very positive review of the movie on their website)

 Third, as Joe Eccleston points out so eloquently, to attack the deliverer of the message rather than the message itself is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem.  I try to avoid logical fallacies; call me crazy.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Take a look at his complaint about how there was too few troops in Afghanistan. Anyone care to talk about the massive amounts of logistics needed to field even one soldier?


 I'll bite.  I haven't *seen* the movie, so I don't know what Moore's specific complaints are.  Keeping in mind that liberals are often unrealistic and unknowing about the practical issues involved with military operations, I'm willing to believe almost anything.

 I will, however, make a few comments about your points re: Afghanistan.  I believe the United States fouled up in Afghanistan with insufficient force commitment, but not because we didn't "invade with insufficient troops".  We actually sustained a very effective *opening* campaign against the Taliban using airpower, detailed local support of anti-Taliban local forces, and unconventional forces... I'm sure we all recall that the Taliban were spanked like unwanted stepdaughters.  

 The failure, to my mind, came *after* these initial successes.  Once we had the Taliban on the run, and had control of major population centers, we could have deployed more ground forces.  We had control over (and the ability to deploy more) airfields.  We had also developed a relationship with Uzbekistan (a brutal dictatorship, btw... but that's off topic).  The forces needed to do a better job in Afghanistan were *not* heavy... the Soviets demonstrated how useless heavy mechanised forces are in combatting insurgencies.  So your comments about M1 Abrams tanks are, to my mind, not at all applicable.  The logistics still would not have been simple, but they were *doable*.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> But let me guess, the words "logistics" and such never came up in the movie, eh?


 I'm totally willing to believe that.  I'm also willing to believe that Michael Moore thinks we should have just thrown a massive deployment of forces into Afghanistan on Day One, an understandably difficult matter to accomplish.  But without seeing the movie, *I don't know*.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Secondly, I'm not at all unwilling to believe that there are twisted distortions in "Fahrenheit 9/11".  However, I *also* know that the Bush Administration *and* the mainstream news media also provide twisted distortions.



Let me try to put this in context. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore had a scene where he opened a bank account and ran out of the bank with a new rifle he got for opening the account.

This was staged. It was not a case of bias, it was a case of Moore staging and presenting blatently false information as part of his agenda. In reality, there is a waiting period and background check and he would not have been able to leave the bank with the gun on the same day he opened the account as he presented it.

No one in the mainstream media, etc would stage such a thing. No one who got caught pulling that type of thing off would be welcomed at sources like 60 Minutes, CNN, etc.

You have to take that into account when you see the stuff in Moore's stuff and realize that no other source seems to be backing him up. He has proven himself willing to present information he _knows_ to be false in order to damn his opponents. No media source, etc, I know of would dare to do that.

And unless you find credible sources that back up what he says, why should you trust anything a person with his track record says? And how many people are going to bother to try to check each and every one of his accusations in detail?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> When you know that what you say is not the whole truth, that there is evidence that blows your theory out of the water and you fail to even mention it, that is lies and deception.


 Assuming, of course, that Moore even says what you accuse him of.  Which you don't really know, do you?




			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Of course Bush, Carter, Clinton had ties with the house of Saud. So what is wrong with that since it is part of their job to deal with other nations heads? So why is Moore making such big deal about pictures taken with Bush, but not letting the world know that every president has had such pictures taken.


 This is such a tedious argument that it's finally time to deal with it.  Carter and Clinton may have had *diplomatic* ties with the House of Saud, but they did not have *financial* ties.

 In 1978, GW Bush founded an oil company named Arbusto 78.  This company received investments exceeding $1 million from Salem bin Laden (older brother to Osama) and Khalid bin Mahfouz (brother-in-law to Osama bin Laden, member of the most powerful banking family in Saudi Arabia, a bank which backs the Saudi royal family) through Jim Bath, the bin Laden's American financial representative.

 The Bush/Saudi ties were extensive enough by 1986 that Jim White, a former business partner of Jim Bath, claims he was offered large payoffs to avoid mentioning them.

 In 1987, future president GW Bush's oil ventures had failed, and were folded into Harken Energy, a company which received a $25+ million dollar investment from Middle Eastern concern BCCI, due mostly to Bush's influence with the Saudis.  Khalid bin Mahfouz is CEO of BCCI.  BCCI was later discovered to be a *massive* criminal enterprise, involved in Iran-Contra, petty larceny, the Medellin drug cartel, and supporter of Saddam Hussein, Abu Nidal, and Manuel Noriega.  bin Mahfouz was fined $225 million dollars.

 In 1992, once out of office, George HW Bush joins the Carlyle Group, and helps strengthen the firms ties to the Saudi royal family *using his connections*.  Bush even visits the bin Laden family compound.  The bin Ladens invest in Carlyle.  Carlyle even buys a company that trains the Saudi royal palace guard.

 Khalid bin Mahfouz later serves as a representative of the Saudi royals to al-Qaeda when an agreement is made that al-Qaeda will not attack Saudi royal interests.

 On September 11, 2001, HW Bush is in a meeting with the Carlyle Group; a meeting that is also attended by a brother of bin Laden.  Two days later, the bin Ladens are flown out of the US.

 Now, will you at least concede that the links between the Bushes and the Sauds are more than simple US-Saudi diplomatic relationships?  I don't really know what Moore said about the bin Laden escape flight, but I'm willing to believe that these issues made him more willing to question the official story.

 See the Canadian Broadcasting Company report: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

 That report is backed up by the resources listed here:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/resources.html



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> We should never have agreed to things like Kosovo with our troops stretched as thing as they were.


 One could certainly make the same argument about the invasion of Iraq.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Here is the facts, the best, independent investigations into the matter say that the US never had any dealings with the Taliban or Bin Laden.


 First, while we may not have formed the Taliban or train bin Laden directly, we *did* precipitate the conflict in Afghanistan (under the Carter administration).  We *did* provide weapons and training to the mujahedeen, many of whom later joined the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

 Moreover, we did have dealings with the Taliban.  US oil firm Unocal was extremely interested in a pipeline project to bring resources out of Uzbekistan through Afghanistan, and provided educational and material resources to the Taliban in order to further this project.  The CIA even believed that, should the Taliban gain control of the entire country, that a US-Saudi-like relationship could be formed.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> No responsible media source seems to want to support him and add details to his accusations. That should be somewhat telling in itself.


 The US "media" is not in the business of evaluating films on a point-by-point basis.  In fact, recent events have shown they can't even be bothered to evaluate the claims of our "elected administration" on a point-by-point basis.  I don't use the media's laziness as an excuse to back up the claims of the Bush Administration, nor do I use it as a way to attack the validity of Moore's claims.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Let me try to put this in context. In Bowling for Columbine, Moore had a scene where he opened a bank account and ran out of the bank with a new rifle he got for opening the account.


 I haven't seen "Bowling for Columbine", so for the sake of the argument, let's assume that the scene happened exactly as you describe.  (btw, have you actually seen the movie, or is this another claim from an anti-Moore resource?)

 Michael Moore is a biased individual making polemic films.  He is not a journalist.  Even "Roger and Me" had a sense of humor.  All of his works, whether films or his series "TV Nation", have contained humor and excessive behavior.  I've sometimes found his confrontational style distasteful and counter-productive.  I've also found that he can exaggerate and distort.

 None of this, to my eye, makes "Fahrenheit 9/11" something that should *just not be seen*.  I recognize Moore's flaws when I go in, and I know I have to check out everything he claims, just as I have to do with the statements of the Bush Administration, of liberal and conservative think-tanks, and even journalists and media sources.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> No one in the mainstream media, etc would stage such a thing. No one who got caught pulling that type of thing off would be welcomed at sources like 60 Minutes, CNN, etc.


 Actually, the mainstream media has been caught staging things and distorting facts on many occasions.  I'll avoid the dozens and dozens of times that they've lied about the invasion of Iraq and "war on terrorism", and simply point out the time Dateline NBC faked an explosive "fuel tank issue" on a series of American pickup trucks, and the time CNN claimed the DC sniper was using "an assault weapon" and compared it to AK-47's.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> You have to take that into account when you see the stuff in Moore's stuff and realize that no other source seems to be backing him up.


 Actually, I've already found, and posted, sources that seem to be backing Moore up.

 And, at the risk of being nauseatingly self-repetitive, I find it impossible to know what Moore is actually *saying*, and therefore evaluate it, without actually *seeing what he's saying*.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> No, I said that the last push was pretty much the invasion. And the things that are starting now with countries like Syria shutting down several terrorist offices are partly because of the invasion. Along with a whole lot of other things that we do not see so much of.


 Libya had been involved in a diplomatic process for years and years with European nations and the United States over its role in the Pan-Am bombing that eventually led to it renouncing terrorism support.  Moreover, Libya remains on the US list of nations that support terrorism.

 Do you have any evidence that any actions by Syria are due to the invasion of Iraq?  Or for any of this shadowy list of "other things we don't see"?



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> But still a source among many. And we do not know what other sources that are classified may have had.


 Another tedious argument.  We do not know if there were any "shadowy intelligence reports" that can't be shared with us.  We *do* know, however, that the Administration used *forged evidence* to justify the invasion of Iraq, and that they *deliberately ordered* that any evidence that countered their argument about invading Iraq be downplayed or ignored.  See:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdf...iraq_nuclear_evidence_knowledge_factsheet.pdf
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_nuclear_evidence_use_factsheet.pdf



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And there is still the matter of what else did Bush want to accomplish and th emessage he wanted to send that has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. But not ones he can talk about without causing problems.


 I know this may come as something of a shock, but Bush is an elected official.  Elected officials don't get to launch pre-emptive wars based on secret agendas.  We have a Constitution that provides the power to wage war to Congress.  Say what you will about the resolution that Congress made authorizing action against Iraq, but that resolution was based on the claims of *WMDs*, claims that have been shown to be based on forgery and deception.  To take action for other reasons is not just wrong, it is criminal, and treasonous.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> For instance, a while back in the Daily Yomiuri, Putin (not a fried of the war in Iraq) said that Russian intelligence services had warned the US that they had learned that Iraqi forces were still exploring terrorist strikes in the US after 9-11. That is not a US report, but not one you seem to hear a lot of.


 Yawn.  First, when this claim was made, I read it the same day on CNN, the BBC, and the Washington Post.  Second, I'll point out that even US officials don't fully believe it:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040618-042238-4504r.htm

 To summarize that article, any Russian intelligence about Iraq did not reach the US State Department.  In addition, Putin specifically said that they had no evidence that Iraq was involved in any acts of terrorism.

 If this shadowy, vague warning was a reason for invading Iraq, the Bush Administration had an obligation to mention it and back it up.  They didn't.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 28, 2004)

Peach,


> I know this may come as something of a shock, but Bush is an elected official.


  Bush was not -E-lected, he was -Se-lected.    That is a whole different debate however.


> Elected officials don't get to launch pre-emptive wars based on secret agendas.



You now can if you are President. 



> We have a Constitution that provides the power to wage war to Congress.



Changes passed while those responsible for safeguarding our rights were quaking in fear have passed this 'privilage' onto Bush 2.0. 



> Say what you will about the resolution that Congress made authorizing action against Iraq, but that resolution was based on the claims of *WMDs*, claims that have been shown to be based on forgery and deception.



Yup.



> To take action for other reasons is not just wrong, it is criminal, and treasonous.



Many would suggest or state outright that King George, Sir Dick and Lady Rice are all guilty of it.  I would state that the current administration, and congress are all guilty of it.  Treason and betrayal of public trust.

I think the voters will sentence them to another 4 years 'hard' labor.


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 28, 2004)

> I think I should remind you that you are looking for facts that support what Moore says and can not seem to be able to find any.


I'm asking you your side of the argument to balance what I know and what I've seen in the film. In other words, I am listening to your side--Not really arguing with you. But, I am urging you to give me more concrete answers. 

The demographics this movie is going for is the 18 to 22 crowd, the ones who didn't vote in the past election. It's summer vacation, this film is breaking records every where. So, the pressure's on you to convince others this film is a LIE, and you don't do this by simply saying "This film is a Lie". Because politics aside, it's a very well made film--it will piss people off.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 28, 2004)

Leaving aside the minor (yet symptomatic) issue of correct usage of the word, "intimidates," (one who bullies, "intimidates," their victim; one making a suggestion that is never made explicit, "intimates," their meaning), let's summarize:

a) Moore is a liar. No evidence yet presented; just links to websites, and assertions that he made stuff up.

b) We had to invade Iraq, because they might've had the far-famed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Of course, by 2002, the UN inspectors and our own intelligence reports were saying otherwise, but they might've. 

c) We know for a fact that the Bush government grossly exaggerated or invented when it claimed to possess certain solid facts about Hussein's weapons programs, most notably in the case of the African, "yellowcake," purchases that never happened.  Moreover, we know for a fact that the Bush government was repeatedly told (not least by Richard Clarke, cited by Mr. Roley as a reliable source) that they were mistaken. 

d) The presentation of evidence, and argument based upon that evidence, should not repeatedly rely upon claims about someone's character, or claims that one event, "is like," another, or claims that we have to take these things on trust because Our Government Has Secret Information Too Secret To Even Be Discussed.

e) Moore's main website, it seems, has a feature that takes up specific claims about lying, and documents the sources of his facts. Where I come from, that's what honest scholars do. And not that it's relevant here, but has the Bush government offered anything comparable?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> e) Moore's main website, it seems, has a feature that takes up specific claims about lying, and documents the sources of his facts. Where I come from, that's what honest scholars do. And not that it's relevant here, but has the Bush government offered anything comparable?


 The URL for this feature is located:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/

 Among other things, this points out that the film *never* states that Bush made the single decision on these flights.  It *does* point out that the Saudi government asked to have Saudis flown out, and that Richard Clarke did testify that he *approved* these flights, *with review by the State Department and the White House*.

 Can we finally discard the silly notion that the anti-Moore sites are presenting the truth about what Moore says and when he says it?


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 28, 2004)

O.K... my take...

I have been very quiet during all this for a reason.

I saw the movie, opening night. I was very excited, for as many of you know (even if you disagree with my political views) I keep up with current affairs. I have the sources to back up a lot of what I already knew he would talk about..so I was excited to see all the little "Moore antics," and a both compelling yet comical interpretation of our current world affairs. Then...I planned on logging on Saturday and giving a steller review of the most entertaining movie of the year. I didn't get what I was looking for.

This film was not Moore's usual work. It was not the usual "docu-comedy" that he puts out. I get a kick out of Moores usual works, but I also can understand why many people don't get a kick out of these same works. Moore's usual stuff is akin to the internet troll who comes on to make a point while starting trouble....it may be funny, but clearly the goal is to piss off half the public. I understand why many of you don't like his earlier works just as much as I understand why one would like them (as I do). However...Farenhiet 9/11 is nothing like anyhting he has done before. 

Out of the entire 2 hour film, there was maybe 10 or 15 minutes of "Moore antic." The rest was cold hard documentary....facts, footage, and sources, presented with about as much Bias as any normal documentary would have. Yes...Moore had a clear thesis, so naturally this is his point of view, and the presentation of the facts are in support of that thesis, as one should expect in any documentary. However...this film was a very serious film. It is a film that all people should see, regardless of political beliefs.

This movie illustrated what I knew already in a very compelling manner. It is easy to read and theorize from a distance, as we all are on this forum. Yet, you can't watch the film without having being brought closer to the issues at at hand.

My friend since the 7th grade, who is standing up in my wedding if he can get leave, is in Bagdad right now. I touched hands (on the training floor) with his unit, and another ranger unit that accompanies him. I have other friends and family that are over their right now. This movie humanized these men. Young men and some women, most of them 17 years old to 30, who are fighting for your right to be on your computer and opinionize right now. Men and women who just want to help us, protect us, and keep us from harms way. Men and women who will die for us. And....all they ask for in return is a little respect, and they ask that our leaders don't send them into harms way for a cause that is unjust. Our country is failing these men and women.

Yet, the death-toll for our soldiers rise each day. The injury toll, that people don't realize, is over 5,000. Our soldiers, 5,000 of them with missing limbs, damaged senses, or brain damage, or whatever. Yea..."whatever"....and meanwhile the budget for military and VA hospitals has since been cut, among other things. How many of our soliders do we plan to leave behind this time around?

The death toll on Iraqi citizens rise each day as well. Many of the Iraqi's dying are women, children, and husbands, and fathers... not "terrorists." I know people who have had to watch their friends die. I know people who have killed others; and not just "terrorists", but kids, or regular citizens, who were in the wrong damn place at the wrong time. Who will right that wrong? Who fill fight that "terror?"

And all for what? The FACT is that these evils have been allowed because a few jerks want to make some bucks, and because too many of YOU (as in, voters) are too goddam moronic to realize that this is what is happening. That FACT is, our administration, and the people who enable them, have allowed pure evil to occur for the almighty dollar.

By the time I reached the parking lot, I had tears rolling down my face. The thought of all those people, thousands of people, both americans and non-americans, who's lives have been ruined so a small few could make another few million. The thought of my friends who are over there...and who trusted us, and the poeple in charge. It isn't f**king fair, or right. 

Farenhiet 9/11 brings all this stuff to the screen; if you consider yourself human, you cannot emotionally or mentally seperate yourself from what has been occuring...and what is occuring today.

Now...why haven't I posted this before? I do not have the emotional tolerance, at this point, to argue my points with the many of you who cannot step outside of your idealectic boxes, who refuse to see the movie because "Michael Moore is a (fill in blank here)!," or who only have enough acumen to read a bunch of negative reviews on a film to justify your close-minded, outright false accusations and ideas. Unlike many of you, this issue is closer to me then you could ever know. Sure...you all are entitled to your opinions, as it is a free country, but I am entitled to not have to put up with them, or deal with them for that matter. 

I am sure many of you, no matter what anyone says, will continue to resort to illogic, and character assasination to support your assertions. I just hope you understand why I won't be posting on this topic again...as I have run out of tolerance for it. I hope you watch the film eventually, regardless of what you think of Moores past works, behaviors, or personality. But, more importantly, I hope that you step back and realize what we've done as a country to innocent people, and what we have done to our soldiers who trust us and depend on us as much as we on them. I hope you realize, come election time, what we have allowed some of our decision makers to do to us, and to our men and women earning their freedoms by putting their lives on the line. I hope that many of you, on this board and elsewhere, will learn to step out of your idealectic box (whether "liberal" or "conservative"), and start supporting decisions that are truely best for our great nation.

Well, one can only hope, anyways....

Paul Janulis


----------



## Nightingale (Jun 28, 2004)

I've maxed out on giving out reputation for today, so I'll say this here instead.

Paul, that post was absolutely brilliant.

I felt the exact same way upon leaving the movie, and since then have paid for the tickets of six people who didn't want to pay to see it.  As of now, at least three have changed their minds as to who they're voting for in November, two are thinking things over, and one walked out of the theatre because he couldn't stand to see what he was sure he "knew" refuted by Bush himself, out of his own mouth.  


I don't really care about the economy, or even the religious issues anymore.  What matters to me is that my friends are over in Iraq getting shot at and wounded for no f-ing good reason.  I'm no safer than I was on September 10, 2001, and my friends are a lot less safe.  Right now, all I want is for nobody else to have to get a phone call saying their friend or relative is injured or coming home in a box with a flag draped over it, because that flag doesn't mean $h!t if the nation that flag represents doesn't step up and start placing a lot more value on the lives of the men and women brave enough to sign up to defend her.

I apologize for the tone of this post... I'm just really, really angry right now.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 28, 2004)

That was a very powerful post, Paul.  I'll be thinking of what you said when I go see the movie.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 28, 2004)

Great post Paul.  I'd pretty much say your post says it all for many of us.  Its too tough an act for me to follow.  For that, I sign off this thread.


Regards,



Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> One source. There are others with different opinions.



Thousands of peoples opinions went into constructing the 2002 National Intelligence Summary.  This constitutes a work that is far beyond the scope of one source and far beyond ANYTHING that we could research ourselves.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Out of the entire 2 hour film, there was maybe 10 or 15 minutes of "Moore antic." The rest was cold hard documentary....facts, footage, and sources, presented with about as much Bias as any normal documentary would have.



Did you bother to double check each and every "fact" that he presented to see that they are indeed facts and not fabrications or merely a small part of the whole story?

Or are you merely going to accept what he says in the movie instead of challenging your convictions and not acknowledge that he has a history in other movies of presenting things as if they were facts, but were in fact staged instances?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 28, 2004)

I have a question or, really a comment for people coming from all different sides of this discussion. Where is the burden of proof? I believe that in discussions here, as in most discussions, if you want to tell someone else that they are taking a point as fact when it is false, the burden of proof lies on you to illustrate the point, and present factual evidence. I think a lot of people here have already done so, but for those of you who have not, I'd encourage you to present facts, sources, and so forth. 

So if one person presents a set of data, and another person sees them as false, it would be helpful if the second person could post factual content. 

In doing so, others of us interested in and observing these discussions would be greatly helped.

Thanks

FM


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 28, 2004)

Personally, I'm going to see the film and make up my own mind.  Why?  Same reason why I (the non-xian) went and saw "The passion" and have encouraged others to do so.

To see with eyes unclouded.

And FM.... Thank you.   Nicely said.


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Jun 28, 2004)

Great post, Paul. If I knew how to give reputation points I'd give you 100 points for that post. You've sum it all up.


----------



## Rick Wade (Jun 28, 2004)

I didn't see the *MOVIE* but I can say what the Academy of Motion pictures said.  "It is ineligible to be nominated in the documentary catagory because it had actors in it"  They also went on to say that over half of the *facts* were proven to be false.  This is just what I read however I will say for every article there is for the film there are two against the film and vice versa.

V/R
Rick


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 28, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Now, will you at least concede that the links between the Bushes and the Sauds are more than simple US-Saudi diplomatic relationships?



Will you concede that the financial links, etc between Bush and the house of Saud are a lot less direct than that between Micheal Moore and Micehal Eisner, and they do not seem to be buds?

And will you concede that what may be two guys involved in the same company does not mean that they are really linked that tight? Or that these groups may have quite a number of people involved in them with only a few knowing each other even on a first name basis? Or that a guy as biased as Moore might try to slant the information so that the relationship would appear a lot closer than it was?

And are you going to go out and double check the points made int he movie to see if Moore may be leaving out little things like this and not telling the whole side of the story? Or are you going to let him do the thinking for you?

Oh, and remember the statement about how just because B follows A that A is not neccesarily the cause of B? So how do you think it relates to the fact that Bush senior was involved in a group that dealt with the Saudi goverment before 15 Saudis slammed into the WTC?

But do you expect Moore to try to do anything other than spin things so that you walk away with the impression that there is a cause and effect relationship?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 28, 2004)

Mr. Robertson,

The hypocrisy of your own behavior must be similarly lost on you, as you blather on about reason while posting little but invective.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 28, 2004)

Phil

I checked what Mr. Robertson's last post was, and I do not see him "blathering on" and "posting little but invective".  

FM


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jun 28, 2004)

I'm sure he doesn't, either, which is the problem.  To each his own;  I gave up teaching pigs to sing a long time ago.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 28, 2004)

Again, "Sharp Phil," it's either "Robert, " (the informal address, which I'd prefer), or, "Dr. Robertson," (the formal, which you may of course use if you prefer)--if, that is, these demands for accuracy apply to everybody equally. 

Similarly, let's use the words right, eh? I don't think I've made any bones about what I think, or presented a big difference between what I think about arguing properly and the way I've actually argued, so "hypocrisy," doesn't seem accurate. See, "hypocrisy," rests on the notion of a difference between what one says to do and what one actually does. It doesn't rest on a fantasy projected by someone who simply disagrees or does not know the facts, and is unwilling to discuss that sort of issue. 

Nor would an occasional mistake on my part establish hypocrisy; it would only establish what we already knew, which is that I'm human.

It is not even hypocrisy to post such lines as, "you blather on about reason while  posting little but invective;" it is merely bad manners, combined with an attempt to avoid real issues. Regrettably, this has become all too common in the wake of the likes of a long string of right-wing...what's the word I want...let's just say, "political commentators," from Joe McCarthy to Michael Savage. (That, by the way, was not hypocrisy either: it was innuendo.) Apparently attacks on the character of people we do not know, or accusations of being un-American, or insults directed at pointy-head intellectuals, are easier than marshalling facts and defending one's intellectual position. 

Now let me see if I can summarize an odd little strain in the last couple pages of this thread. Our President leads us into an undeclared war based upon erroneous, or misinterpreted, or distorted, or in a couple of cases completely invented facts--which this very thread has laid out repeatedly--and Michael Moore's the bad guy. Offhand, I'd say the President's distortions--which are on public record--are a little more serious than what happens in a movie. 

Second--apropos of spinning things, or checking the facts--anybody out there think that was a Russian water tentacle--oops, wrong movie--anybody out there who thought that George Bush wasn't,  a) representing his case from not just a Republican, but a very conservative, viewpoint? b) leaving out a few little details, such as this country's support and training of what became the Taliban during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan? Anybody out there who thought that the President and his cronies were asking us to think for ourselves, check the facts first, before we jumped in with both feet? 

Third--one of the most remarkable things about this thread is the absence of mention of the utterly false, and indeed hallucinatory, suppositions upon which our government relied. Nobody recollects the repeated assertion that the Iraquis would  welcome us with open arms? That WMDs would  be found all over the place? That there were clear and direct ties between Hussein and Al Quaida? 

I STILL haven't seen anybody clearly refute a single fact in one of Moore's movies--I've seen links to sites that attack him, claims that this or that thing can't be right, personal insults galore, but no damn evidence whatsoever. In haven't seen reasoned arguments in opposition, either: I've seen constant changings of the subject, insults, etc., but no real discussion. remarkable, given the reiteratied claims that Moore's lying, that he isn't being logical, etc. Ya wouldn't think it'd be all that difficult. 

Just incidentally, O  lovers of capitalism, bad news: the movie was No. 1 at the box office this weekend. Looks like the public is speaking.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 28, 2004)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> I didn't see the *MOVIE* but I can say what the Academy of Motion pictures said. "It is ineligible to be nominated in the documentary catagory because it had actors in it" They also went on to say that over half of the *facts* were proven to be false.


 Rick,

 Where did you read this?  Can you give us a reference?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Will you concede that the financial links, etc between Bush and the house of Saud are a lot less direct than that between Micheal Moore and Micehal Eisner, and they do not seem to be buds?


 Actually, I wouldn't concede that at all.  Saudi businessmen lined up from around the world to invest in Arbusto and in Harken Energy, despite GW Bush's record as a businessman.  Do you think that could possibly have anything to do with Bush's access to his father, as a senior administration official, and then President?  Particularly when GW Bush himself touted his access as an asset?

 Moreover, as disclosed by Craig Unger in "House of Saud, House of Bush" (among other sources), Saudi Prince Bandar is so close to the Bush family that they consider him a member of the family, and call him "Bandar Bush".



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And will you concede that what may be two guys involved in the same company does not mean that they are really linked that tight? Or that these groups may have quite a number of people involved in them with only a few knowing each other even on a first name basis? Or that a guy as biased as Moore might try to slant the information so that the relationship would appear a lot closer than it was?


 That would be a distinct possibility with any polemic; however, it has already been shown that the Bushes and Saudis are far, far closer than this.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And are you going to go out and double check the points made int he movie to see if Moore may be leaving out little things like this and not telling the whole side of the story? Or are you going to let him do the thinking for you?


 I have seen the movie since I last posted on this topic.

 I *will* continue to research the points raised by Moore, but not for your sake but my own.  Honestly, Don, given that I've provided researched point after researched point, and you have responded with evasion, hyperbole, and theory, I think it's pretty clear that the burden of proof in this argument falls to *you*.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> But do you expect Moore to try to do anything other than spin things so that you walk away with the impression that there is a cause and effect relationship?


 Actually, Moore doesn't spin things this way at all.  He never even implies that the Bushes and Saudis conspired to cause 9/11.  But you wouldn't know that, because you're letting other people form your opinions for you.

 In the future, I would certainly appreciate it if you'd research your points and back them with citations and evidence.  I'm tired of doing all the heavy lifting in this conversation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 28, 2004)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> I didn't see the *MOVIE* but I can say what the Academy of Motion pictures said.  "It is ineligible to be nominated in the documentary catagory because it had actors in it"  They also went on to say that over half of the *facts* were proven to be false.  This is just what I read however I will say for every article there is for the film there are two against the film and vice versa.
> 
> V/R
> Rick



Can you post the source for this article?  I would like to read where it states that over half of Michael Moore's facts are incorrect.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 28, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> But do you expect Moore to try to do anything other than spin things so that you walk away with the impression that there is a cause and effect relationship?



The only way to judge this is to *see the movie * and read reviews that are for and against.  I posted a review given by a prominant liberal, Christopher Hitchens, that was not very glowing for Moore.  I suggest that people take a look at sources like that.

Spin is spin and you can see it when you see it.  At times, F911 is incredulous.  At others, the facts speak for themselves.  And in reality, Mr. Moore really doesn't have to say much about some stuff.  The administration has really messed up bad in some areas.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 28, 2004)

Here is a list of reviews done by mainstream sources.  Check out what professionals _who have seen the movie _ have to say about the movie.

http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/movie.aspx?mp=v&m=561592

 :asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 28, 2004)

Phil



> I'm sure he doesn't, either, which is the problem. To each his own; I gave up teaching pigs to sing a long time ago.


With each added little dig at Dr. Robertson, I'm going to have to ask you to show me the invective he has spouted, as he seems too well-mannered to do so. 

I don't see you trying to teach anyone, be they pigs (nice) or no. Talk facts, have a discussion, but comments about singing pigs aren't going to win any points in the conversation.



> I *will* continue to research the points raised by Moore, but not for your sake but my own. Honestly, Don, given that I've provided researched point after researched point, and you have responded with evasion, hyperbole, and theory, I think it's pretty clear that the burden of proof in this argument falls to *you*.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Roley*
> ...


PeachMonkey - I like your metaphor.  Very apropos.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 28, 2004)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> I didn't see the *MOVIE* but I can say what the Academy of Motion pictures said. "It is ineligible to be nominated in the documentary catagory because it had actors in it" They also went on to say that over half of the *facts* were proven to be false. This is just what I read however I will say for every article there is for the film there are two against the film and vice versa.
> 
> V/R
> Rick


This statement begs two questions ... 

Which article did you read that said that greater than 50% of the facts were proven to be false? I would like to read it. Can you kindly post a link.

If there are two articles against the film for every article in favor of the film, how can that mathematics possibly work in your description of 'vice versa'?

Mike


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> leaving out a few little details, such as this country's support and training of what became the Taliban during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan?



This just caught my eye.

You really do not bother to check the facts, do you?

The Taliban was started in Pakistan AFTER the Soviet's moved out of Afghanistan. The groups that had been fighting them had started to turn on each other and the US (Under Clinton) turned their backs on them as they fed on each other. The Taliban moved in and eventually took over. Some of the locals that had been fighting the soviets with American help went over to them, but the majority went to what we called the Northern Alliance.

I suppose it is too much to ask someone who is so keen on charecter assasination and short on facts that they accused a jewish author of having an anti-semite bias in her novels to actually check his facts, but considering just how much you spend trying to convince other people that they should read books that really do not say what you say they do, it would kind of help your position to actually know what you are talking about from time to time.

Go ahead, flame away or change the subject after being caught in this little mess. Here is a link to what you tried to say, http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=235824#post235824 and I think people should see what a person who accuses a Jewish author of beating up on peole named Scwartz can be considered a resonable source of information when he says that a book or source says something. I stated listening to people who have more experience with you than I and pretty much know what to expect.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 29, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> You really do not bother to check the facts, do you?


 Haven't we already been over this?  At the risk of putting words in Robert's mouth, he has twice referred to "training what *became* the Taliban" (emphasis my own).  We trained the mujahedeen.  Many (most?) of them joined the Taliban.  Robert never said we formed the Taliban itself.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I suppose it is too much to ask someone who is so keen on charecter assasination and short on facts that they accused a jewish...


 Don, you sadden me.  When this discussion started, I thought we were going to discuss Fahrenheit 9/11 and the facts within it (or lack thereof).

 At every point, when presented with arguments, facts, and references, you have responded with evasion, ad hominem attacks, and changes of topic.  And, as far as I know, you *still* haven't seen the film.

 Until you can actually address the points we bring up instead of relying on these logical fallacies, why don't you save your attacks and prevarication and let the adults discuss the film?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 29, 2004)

Dear Don:

First off, I don't need to look up what I wrote about Ayn Rand. I recall it quite well, and I stand behind it: her novels have at least two very ugly streaks in them, one of misogyny and one of racial superiority. "The Fountainhead," features one of the nastiest rape scenes in literature, made much nastier by the fact that Rand makes it very clear that her character enjoys being beaten, assaulted and left unconscious on a bathroom floor; that same novel, along with, "Atlas Shrugged," says again and again and again that a few Superior Men (who just happen to be described in classic terms of Aryan supremacy) are the only ones who count, and that these few Superior Men are beset by the smaller, inferior hordes who have names like Schwartz. Go read the books; show me where I'm wrong.

Of course it is entirely possible for a, "Jewish author," to beat up on people named Schwartz or whatever (I must admit I don't recall the exact name), just as it  is possible for women to write in ways that are misogynist--or, to be fairer, deeply into S&M. In Rand's case--and why exactly did she change her name?--I'd trace these elements back into the strands of Tsar-worship and anti-semitism/racism that, from the little I've read about it, are still very much a part of Russian culture.

As for those people, "who have more experience than you or I," well, I'm afraid you need to speak for yourself in this regard. I'm not exactly the Old Man of the Sea, but neither did I just fall off the sugar-beet truck last night. Some of the evidence that I might actually know what I'm talking about lies in the fact that I STILL haven't seen your evidence that Moore's film--or for that matter, my own arguments--are way off the mark. Lots of other stuff and guff, yes (the previous poster offers a perfectly sound list), but not  that.

And yet, if Moore's so far off the beam, if I'm so befogged by ideology, it should be the easiest thing in the world.

To me, you've got a bit of an intellectual and ethical problem here. Basically, a lot of what you're saying simply cannot be supported either logically or factually. Yet your basic political orientation demands that you make certain claims, view reality a certain way---which (sorry in advance) means that you have to skip over some facts, or keep subject-changing to avoid discussions that would expose problems, or launch personal attacks, or draw unwwarranted conclusions, or insult other people's belief in their country. These things fill in the gaps in what you're claiming.

We all do this sort of thing, of course. It's the way ideology manifests itself in discussion....as when people who haven't seen Moore's film condemn it, then turn right around and write, "considering just how much you spend trying to convince other people that they should read books that really do not say what you say they do, it would kind of help your position to actually know what you are talking about from time to time." 

If you don't want to see the film, cool. I don't plan to either: why? But could you maybe give chapter and verse on any ONE of the books I've suggested that really does not say what I said it says? 

Specifics, please. Further character attack will be responded to with this little  trick I learned from, "Neuromancer."


----------



## qizmoduis (Jun 29, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Haven't we already been over this?  At the risk of putting words in Robert's mouth, he has twice referred to "training what *became* the Taliban" (emphasis my own).  We trained the mujahedeen.  Many (most?) of them joined the Taliban.  Robert never said we formed the Taliban itself.
> 
> 
> Don, you sadden me.  When this discussion started, I thought we were going to discuss Fahrenheit 9/11 and the facts within it (or lack thereof).
> ...



I haven't had anything to say in this thread, because I haven't seen the movie yet.  I don't really know if I will, because I go to movies to enjoy myself, not to be enraged over an administration that I already know is the most duplicitous and dangerous ever in our nation's history.

But Don's comment about the Taliban is correct.  The taliban didn't originate with the Afghani mujahideen, but rather with Afghan refugees who studied in religious schools over the border in Pakistan.  The schools were created by the Pakistan government and the students were encouraged and supported by that government as a counter to the mujahideen groups potentially explosive nationalism.

We can probably be held remotely accountable because our sudden and complete abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out helped create the climate of vicious, fueding, fuedal warlords that became the enemy that the Taliban fought and dominated.  That the Taliban was not a lesser evil wasn't discovered by the average Afghan until it was too late.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 29, 2004)

Sorry, but it would appear that our involvement with the Taliban was direct and extended.

Please see:

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mossadeq2.html

And also Mary Anne Weaver's articles in "Atlantic Monthly," May 1998 and "Blowback," Vol. 277, No. 5, 24-36.

Both sources, I am afraid, clearly establish US/Saudi/Pakistani support for the Taliban--including, it appears, some help in setting up those religious schools across the border--as part of opposition to the Soviet occupation.

The Weaver articles are more than a little disturbing, since they discuss at some length the support of two guys named Sheikh Omar and Osama Bin Laden, whom some of you may have heard of. And the article, which clearly identifies both of them as a pair of homicidal nutjobs, come from 1998. Hm.

Before anybody starts  yakkin' about this being typical liberalist hogwash or Commie propaganda (and I didn't even mention the World  Wide Socialist Web aarticle, which is also pretty good), you might want to take a peek at the sources. They a) dump on Bill Clinton's government quite a lot, b) rely heavily on the investigations of Dana Rohrbacher, who (trust me) is not even remotely a liberal.

Sorry, sorry, but this is one more example of our country's playing precisely the sorts of games that Mark Twain indicted in "To the People Sitting in darkness," more than a frickin' century ago, and suffering for it. 

And we still won't learn.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 29, 2004)

Robert,

Thank you for your thoughtful notes and references.  I learn something in nearly every one of your posts.


----------



## qizmoduis (Jun 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, but it would appear that our involvement with the Taliban was direct and extended.
> 
> Please see:
> 
> ...



This is the source I used:  
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue1/jv6n1a1.html

Other than that, I have nothing to add, really.  I'm  not the expert in this, that's for sure.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, but it would appear that our involvement with the Taliban was direct and extended.
> 
> Please see:
> 
> ...



Can't get the site to load, so it seems that I would have to take your word for it, and that is not good enough.

And, the Taliban did indeed start in Pakistan and entered Afghanistan NOT to fight the Soviets, but the coalition that replaced it. These are simple, easily known facts. America was not part of the scene when they were formed, Pakistan was. So, your "facts" are again a very twisted version of reality- like what you say about Ayn Rand, etc.

I did like the link that Gizmodius was kind onough to link. Especially this part.



> One of the greatest criticisms of U.S. policy, especially after the rise of the Taliban, has been that the CIA directly supported Arab volunteers who came to Afghanistan to wage jihad against the Soviets, but eventually used those American arms to engage in terrorist war against the West. However, the so-called "Afghan Arabs" only emerged as a major force in the 1990s. During the resistance against the Soviet occupation, Arab volunteers played at best a cursory role.
> 
> According to a former intelligence official active in Afghanistan during the late 1980s, the Arab volunteers seldom took part in fighting and often raised the ire of local Afghans who felt the volunteers merely got in the way. In an unpublished essay, a military officer writing under the name Barney Krispin, who worked for the CIA during its support of the Afghan mujahidinís fight against the Soviet Army, summoned up the relationship between Afghan and non-Afghan fighters at that time:
> 
> ...



Speaking of which, how many people who are urging others to open their mind and see the "other side of the story" have bothered to do the same? I have noticed only _one_ person who seems even half way interested in checking the story as Moore presents it. We all admit that he is biased, and that he is probably not going to give any evidence that may contridict the version he wants to give, but his fans consider what he says as the whole story and don't bother to look deeper into the matter.

Case in point, Moore says that Bush is responsible for letting the Saudis and Bin Laden family loose on 9-13. Clarke testified that it was his decision and not Bush's. All the Moore fans seem satisfied with the explination by Moore that Clarke then sent the reccomendations to the White house for final approval, etc.

No one seems to consider the fact that 48 hours after the towers came down the White House was a bit busy. They had the final say in the matter, and if there had been something to set off alarms they would have overridden Clarke's reccomendation, but without anything of the sort they probably just rubber stamped his reccomendation and let the diplomats and such leave the country.

So yes, Moore lies when he tries to present Bush as the decision maker in letting the Saudis go. Clarke made the dicision, the White House (very busy at the time remember) let his decision stand, end of story. Not one of the guys who have tried to get people to see the movie to open the mind seems willing to go out and get the entire, complete story in such detail that they can tell what is being left out by Moore.

So, I think that the people who like Moore have got the responsibility to go out and start doing things like read the entire 9-11 commision report when they can, find out enough of international politics to know what the history of th eBath party is and the head of it in various countries, know the problems of what kind of troops are needed in certain situations and how many of each type there are, etc. You guys are relying on Moore to tell one side of the story, but do not seem willing to get the full story and every side of it.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 30, 2004)

Hey Don,

It seems pretty cold where you are.... Seems you are all alone on this one.

Anyhow, I have just one question for you.

If you think you have figured out who Richard Clarke is now (as opposed to Wesley Clark), can you tell me *where*, and *for whom* Richard Clarke was working on September 13, 2001?  

(OK technically, that is probably 2 questions).

Do you know where his office was?
Do you know who his boss was?

Thanks. Mike


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 30, 2004)

Does the answers change the fact that he took the responsibility of making the decisions and that he is no fan of the president so can not be accused of trying to cover for him? And that the president and his staff probably just rubber stamped what he reccomended instead of instigating it? Or are you going to try to engage in a conspiracy theory along the lines of trying to accuse a jewish aauthor of being an anti semite and then when caught in it try to paint her as a masocist?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 30, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Can't get the site to load, so it seems that I would have to take your word for it, and that is not good enough.


 Don, Robert listed two other references as well.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> So, your "facts" are again a very twisted version of reality


 Don, did you read the other two references?



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I have noticed only _one_ person who seems even half way interested in checking the story as Moore presents it. We all admit that he is biased, and that he is probably not going to give any evidence that may contridict the version he wants to give, but his fans consider what he says as the whole story and don't bother to look deeper into the matter.


 I'm guessing you're referring to me, and yep, I *am* biased.  I also watch Fox News, and read the National Review, and even occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh.

 The thing is, Don, you have not presented evidence to show that Michael Moore is such an inexcusable liar that no one should even begin to consider watching his film and seeing what he has to say.  Case in point:



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Moore says that Bush is responsible for letting the Saudis and Bin Laden family loose on 9-13.


 Actually, no, he doesn't.  Moore points out that the Saudis and bin Ladens were allowed to leave, and his focus is on the fact that *they were not questioned*.  Again, having not seen the movie, you're making judgments about what Moore says, and whether or not it's a lie.  You are singularly unqualified to make such a judgment, as you have *not seen the movie*.

 Now, given that you have no idea what you're talking about re: the contents of the film, I'm not sure it's worth rebutting your other points about the Saudis, but here we go:



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> All the Moore fans seem satisfied with the explination by Moore that Clarke then sent the reccomendations to the White house for final approval, etc.


 Actually, the "Moore fans" (especially me) are *speculating* that that *may be* the case.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> but without anything of the sort they probably just rubber stamped his reccomendation and let the diplomats and such leave the country.


 Again, you show an ignorance of the facts, which either seeing the film or doing some reading on your own would clarify.  The "diplomats and such" to which you allude were 142 Saudis, 24 of which were members of the bin Laden family.  Most were *not* diplomats.  The group included students and businesspeople.  Even if there was no conspiratorial element in allowing the Saudis to leave, it was *grossly neglegent* to allow relatives of the *prime suspect in the attacks* to leave the nation without questioning.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> So yes, Moore lies when he tries to present Bush as the decision maker in letting the Saudis go.


 Since Moore doesn't say that, no, he doesn't.  Why don't you see the movie before deciding what it says?



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Not one of the guys who have tried to get people to see the movie to open the mind seems willing to go out and get the entire, complete story in such detail that they can tell what is being left out by Moore.


 This is quite an assumption, Don.  Moreover, since you claim the film is fill of lies, it actually behooves *you* to back up your claims.  Since you don't even know what the movie *says*, I'm not holding my breath.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> So, I think that the people who like Moore have got the responsibility to go out and start doing things


 Don, I have read the report.  And the Waxman committee reports.  I majored in classics, history, and politics, with a focus on military history.  I am familiar with the history of the Baath party (I'm guessing the eBath party is some how related to "Wesley Clarke"). 

 Why aren't opponents of the Moore film, and supporters of the Bush administration, under the same obligation?  Why is it okay to accept the statements of the Bush administration with blind faith?  Why is the burden of research in debate always on the opposition?  You clearly 

 I understand that you may not want to see the film under any circumstances, but that pretty much robs you of any legitimacy in entering debate about its content.  You continue to expect people who disagree with you to back up their arguments with detailed, factual information, and *also* to engage in painstaking research about Moore's film to see if there are any flaws, but you won't even begin to do the same yourself.

 The word "hypocrite" comes to mind again, but this time, I'm not thinking of Michael Moore when I use it.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jun 30, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Or are you going to try to engage in a conspiracy theory along the lines of trying to accuse a jewish aauthor of being an anti semite and then when caught in it try to paint her as a masocist?


 Don, why do you continue to engage in ad hominem arguments about Robert even when you're called on it?  Robert discussed exactly what he meant, and you did not respond to his actual points, but instead *again* made a character attack.

 Have you actually *read* Ayn Rand?  "Atlas Shrugged"?  "The Fountainhead"?  If Robert's comments about Rand bother you so much, why don't you address them directly instead of attacking his character?  Or are you not equipped to do so?


----------



## Nightingale (Jun 30, 2004)

MOD NOTE-

Just a reminder... Attack the ISSUES, not the PERSON.  If someone posts something you disagree with, counter with facts or other sources.  Do not attack the poster.  This is a good thread with a lot of good info being shared, and I don't want to have to lock it.

Thanks.

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 30, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Does the answers change the fact that he took the responsibility of making the decisions and that he is no fan of the president so can not be accused of trying to cover for him? And that the president and his staff probably just rubber stamped what he reccomended instead of instigating it? Or are you going to try to engage in a conspiracy theory along the lines of trying to accuse a jewish aauthor of being an anti semite and then when caught in it try to paint her as a masocist?


*DO* the answers change the fact that he took the responsibility ... .

I don't know. But, then, I am not certain that you are aware that there *ARE *answers to my questions. In normal discourse, when an interrogative is made, a statement of response is appropriate. So, I will ask again:

You said:


			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Clarke made the dicision, the White House (very busy at the time remember) let his decision stand, end of story.


I said:


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> can you tell me *where*, and *for whom* Richard Clarke was working on September 13, 2001?


You seem to be indicating that Richard Clarke is to George W. Bush as Kenneth Starr is to William Jefferson Clinton. Can you clarify that perception for me?

Thanks, Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 30, 2004)

I just cracked myself up with this one.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Case in point, Moore says that Bush *is responsible* for letting the Saudis and Bin Laden family loose on 9-13. Clarke testified that it was his decision and not Bush's.


Can you picture President Bush ... (or even Don Roley) ... testifying before an independent counsel"
"I guess it would depend on what the definition of "*is responsible*" is."​<chuckling>


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 30, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Does the answers change the fact that he took the responsibility of making the decisions and that he is no fan of the president so can not be accused of trying to cover for him? And that the president and his staff probably just rubber stamped what he reccomended instead of instigating it? Or are you going to try to engage in a conspiracy theory along the lines of trying to accuse a jewish aauthor of being an anti semite and then when caught in it try to paint her as a masocist?



I said I was leaving this thread...but like Michael Corleone, it keeps pulling me back.

Richard Clarke served at the pleasure of the President.  Any decisions Clarke, or Rumsfeld, or Rice, or Powell make they make in the name of this administration.  You're trying, it seems, to defend the President by passing the buck from him to Clarke.

If Bush "ruibber stamps" any act, it is his responsibility.  He is the President.  The buck stops with him.  

You state that the White House had other concerns in the 48 hours following the 9-11 attack, and you suggest that the President merely rubberstamped it without concern (below).  _The family that we're talking about is the nuclear family of the man responsible for the attack._ 

That rings no alarm bells with this administration?




			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> No one seems to consider the fact that 48 hours after the towers came down the White House was a bit busy. They had the final say in the matter, and if there had been something to set off alarms they would have overridden Clarke's reccomendation, but without anything of the sort they probably just rubber stamped his reccomendation and let the diplomats and such leave the country.





Regards,

Steve


----------



## Kane (Jul 7, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> So now that the movie's actually out, did any of you see it? I did. Comments?


I saw the movie the other day, and it so obvious how bias it was. Moore is one of the biggest bias for the liberal side. Not saying liberals are bias, but just by reading Moore's books you can see total biasism. 

That's what I think.


----------



## Nightingale (Jul 7, 2004)

Moore's never claimed to be unbiased.  He's only showing one side, and he's well aware of it.  

However, Bush is only showing one side as well.  The white house isn't without bias either.  At least Moore is honest about it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 7, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> I saw the movie the other day, and it so obvious how bias it was. Moore is one of the biggest bias for the liberal side. Not saying liberals are bias, but just by reading Moore's books you can see total biasism.
> 
> That's what I think.




Sure, 'tis biased indeed.  

That said, pick it apart and find those elements that you can say were false.  That, typically, is the standard for tearing such a film apart.  Find the parts wherein Moore lied...if he in fact did lie.   Many allegations have been leveled that he lied.  Comment on them.

You might also aknowledge those points where Moore hit it dead on.  

I find it difficult to argue with a mother who has lost a son in a war that many on the Right and Left ends of the political spectrum now question.  Granted, Moore could have presented a mother who was proud to have given her son in the cause of Iraqi liberty, versus say, U.S. security (the job description of U.S. Armed Forces and the major selling point of the war).  But Moore had a bias.  

I find it difficult to argue with a young sergeant complaining that Halliburton truck drivers get paid three times the amount he is making, for driving the same stretch of road.  I mean...gee...45 or so Halliburton employees have been killed so far versus over eight hundred soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen...what was Moore thinking?  Such bias...tsk, tsk.

Bottom line...Moore makes political commentary with his work.  This is no secret, and certainly admits to bias.  If his highly publicized films err in any way, it is then "open season" on Moore for his accuracy.  He has, in the past, taken some major hits.  His movies, once distributed, are laid bare for all to see and criticize.

So do it.  

But please let us have a little more than an allegation of bias.

Regards,



Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 7, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> I saw the movie the other day, and it so obvious how bias it was. Moore is one of the biggest bias for the liberal side. Not saying liberals are bias, but just by reading Moore's books you can see total biasism.
> 
> That's what I think.


To a certain extent, I agree with Steve, and would like to hear more about your thoughts on the film. But, on the other hand (Geesh - we liberals always seem to have two hands), if you don't want to share your thoughts on how the film affected you personally (or how it did not), that is fine to. 

I appreciate the fact that you decided to go to the movie. This puts you in a far better place to comment on the film than, let's say, the White House; where they apparently feel it is OK to comment on a film that they have not seen.

Carry on then - Mike


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 7, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Sure, 'tis biased indeed.
> 
> That said, pick it apart and find those elements that you can say were false.



http://www.moorelies.com/

And after all the talk that has been spread about how we should open our minds, I really look forward to those that say that you can dismiss this site because they have a bias. 
 :uhyeah: 

Of course, there is a lot to the story. And Moore, being biased, does not tell the WHOLE story. Those that have the same mentality as him are sitisfied with the meager excuses he gives and don't bother to check deeper.

All the while, they tell others to check out the propaganda piece in order to "broaden their minds" without themselves bothering to check out the entire picture of all Moore's various accusations.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 7, 2004)

Don,

I am familiar with the web site. I actually visit it occasionally to keep myself abreast of the possibility of being mislead by Mr. Moore.

Is there a specific accusation on the MooreLies website you would like to point out for discussion.

I am making no claim to bias ... or open or closed mindedness ... Let's talk about disputed facts. Got any?

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 7, 2004)

Kane,

Michael has far more tact than I do...and I came off as a little strong.  Gee...that is SO unlike me, right?

I again commend you on seeing the film.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 7, 2004)

"Biasism?" 

Yes, Mr. Roley, I too would like to see a specific mis-statement of fact discussed. So far, I've seen insults, generalizations, references of right-wing websites, and confusion over terms like, "responsibility," but no specifics.

Got any? 


Regrettably, one of the things that's happened to public debate in this country--and Japan too, it seems--is that thanks to the likes of Limbaugh and Savage, conservatives and rightists have completely lost their ability to argue intelligently. 

Never thought I'd miss Barry Goldwater.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 7, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> http://www.moorelies.com/
> 
> And after all the talk that has been spread about how we should open our minds, I really look forward to those that say that you can dismiss this site because they have a bias.
> 
> ...




Thank you for the web site.  

Now, we can have some reference material, and you have meat for your arguments.  Rather than asking us to simply read them...which I shall (and am, presently downloading Kopel's piece)...and you shall not find me minimizing any of these for their bias.  In fact, I hope Peachmonkey, Michael, and Robert take it to the other thread for discussion of the weak points of the film.  The articles might be helpful in that vein.

But, Mr. Roley, I have even a better idea.

Why don't you pick out your favorites from these criticisms and tell us how they compare with  _ what you saw in the film._   I'd be interested in hearing your analysis on the film based on _what you saw_, and how it agreed or differed from what these critiques present.

Further, I'd be interested in your analysis of the defenses of Moore's work, and would find it helpful to see which of these defenses you find most suspect, based on _your viewing of the film._

I'd love to hear, Mr. Roley, which scene offended you the most  _upon viewing it._  Which scene, if any, are you willing to concede had the most powerful impact upon the  _audience seated to your left and right?_.

Or shall we have the response "I don't need to see something to know its a lie" line?  I've heard this argument phrased only slightly differently with books:  "I don't have to read something to know what's in it!"   

I could address many of the issues in Kopel's piece...but you'll be countering only with Kopel, and arguing blind.  Why not go see the flick and get an idea of what arena you're about to enter?  You would be better armed for the debate.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 8, 2004)

Still waitin' for the specifics. Not excpecting any, but still waiting nonetheless...and I enjoyed the argument that the "moorelies," website is perfectly OK despite its biases, but Moore's movie is not because it's biased.

Yes, I looked at the website. With its endless plugs for an anti-Moore book, its paeans to its advertisers, its reiteration of the same old, "Michael Moore hates America," mean-spirited nonsense, its citations of lots of reviews, its plans for various attacks on Moore, and all the rest.

Imagine my surprise: pretty thin on real research, real facts, any specifics.

Now I imagine that Moore's film has its flaws. In fact, I'm sure of it. But whatever I imagine, I know what decent research looks like--and "moorelies," ain't it. It's a lazy recitation of the same old accusations, liberally mixed with all sorts of errors and silly assertions itself. Moore would hardly call Vietnam simply, "Nixon's war," and the cited argument between Moore and Nader kinda trashes the loonbox, "left-wing/liberal conspiracy to destroy America," theory we hear so much about.

Hey, guess what? This is an unabashed piece of propaganda, of right-wing agitprop and right-wing advertising for right-wing products. Which they have every right to do--but don't confuse it with a real discussion.

Personally, I blame teachers. If we'd been doing a decent job of teaching respect for real scholarship, and an understanding of real "critical thinking," sites like this would have a hard time finding readers. And, conservatives would be able to do better than this. You'd think somebody like Buckley--no Edmund Burke, but not bad--would occasionally chew out conservatives for their sloppy frickin' discourse, but I guess not.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Personally, I blame teachers. If we'd been doing a decent job of teaching respect for real scholarship, and an understanding of real "critical thinking," sites like this would have a hard time finding readers. And, conservatives would be able to do better than this. You'd think somebody like Buckley--no Edmund Burke, but not bad--would occasionally chew out conservatives for their sloppy frickin' discourse, but I guess not.



Robert, in the same vein that says that a parent can override the moral teaching a teacher does, so too does a culture of anti-intelectualism.  From my perspective, as a teacher, I'm doing my darndest to try and teach people how to look at evidence and think about it.  Yet the easy paths of "bias" and illogic are consistantly chosen over actual reason.  Why?  Because our national leaders have made this kind of nondebate popular and the voters are too lazy to decry it.  

As far as the film goes, and I have viewed it twice, here are the parts that I thought were distortions or misrepresentations of the truth.  There were no actual _lies _ to my knowledge though.

1.  The display of soldiers in Iraq as freewheeling killing machines burning everything in their path to heavy metal music.  The implication here is that ALL soldiers are like this.

2.  The display of Iraq as a peaceful place where children played and everyone lived a normal happy life...we could have taken pictures in concentration camps of people laughing and children playing, but it does not mean that it was a happy or fulfilling place.  Not that Iraq was anything close to a concentration camp...

3.  The claim that only one congressmen had a son or daughter serving in Iraq...other congressmen were interviewed that said their sons or daughters served, but were not stationed in Iraq.  I'm looking for statements from these congressmen that are "on the record" regarding this matter.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 8, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as the film goes, and I have viewed it twice, here are the parts that I thought were distortions or misrepresentations of the truth.  There were no actual _lies _ to my knowledge though.
> 
> 1.  The display of soldiers in Iraq as freewheeling killing machines burning everything in their path to heavy metal music.  The implication here is that ALL soldiers are like this.
> 
> ...



Upnorth,

1.  Moore, you will recall, had soldiers reflecting on how difficult it was to kill another man.  A young blonde lad expressed his confidence that a piece of a person's soul died each time he killed another.  I do not find that stereotypes the soldiers in the film as killing machines.  There was no implication whatsoever, given this, that ALL soldiers in Iraq were ruthless.

I recall seeing on MSNBC or Fox, I can't recall which, an interview with some Marines where one of them was saying he'd be playing "Kill Them All" by Metallica when he entered Baghdad...so Moore wasn't alone in presenting this image.

2.  Were the clips of the children in Iraq real?  If so, then we have kids in fact playing with kites and going down slides, etc.  Children do that.  The message I got was that there were innocent children in Iraq who were bound to get caught in the coming conflagration.  We know they did...and the film later shows a child's corpse...a very real body, too, I'd say, with grieving Arabs rightfully questioning the death of the child.  

Moore's message was stark, but contained a simple truth.  Kids get hurt in war...and its something people in the U.S. don't likely think about that much.  It certainly hasn't been on the news that often.  I've seen two images on the news where children were hurt.  The press has sanitized this war quite a bit.

3.  The issue of Congressmen's children serving in, say, Germany versus Iraq miss the point.  At the time of Moore's filming, only one child of a Congressman was in harm's way.  The point was simple, and accurate...the people that approved the war do not have children at risk in any great numbers.  It is a valid observation.  Moore's point was that an overwhelmingly large proportion of poor people serve on the battlefield.  The heirs to the rich rarely do.  

When the draft comes, and I suspect it shall unless things change, it will be interesting to see what deferments are handed out and to whom.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 12, 2004)

For those who are curious ... (and we know who you are) ... Michael Moore has posted the reference material to the *facts* he states in Fahrenheit 9/11. 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

There are currently six different sections for review concerning factual statements in the movie. Links are located on the right sidebar on the webpage.

Mike


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 12, 2004)

It would be nice if Rush Limbaugh backed up his statements HALF as thoroughly as Moore does.


----------



## SMP (Jul 12, 2004)

I think there was some obvious cut and paste done.  Although I have disagreed with some of moores point I think listening to him present his case is interesting. I think that it is falsely labled as a documentry - It should be popitical comentary.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 12, 2004)

SMP said:
			
		

> I think there was some obvious cut and paste done.


I am curious what you mean by this statement? Are you referring to cutting and pasting the footage he used in his film? Are you referring to the 'footnotes' to his film; the sources he references to validate his factual statements?




			
				SMP said:
			
		

> Although I have disagreed with some of moores point I think listening to him present his case is interesting. I think that it is falsely labled as a documentry - It should be popitical comentary.


What would separate a 'documentary' from a 'political commentary'? How would a film end up in one category, as opposed to the other?

Thanks, Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 12, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Upnorth,
> 
> 1.  Moore, you will recall, had soldiers reflecting on how difficult it was to kill another man.  A young blonde lad expressed his confidence that a piece of a person's soul died each time he killed another.  I do not find that stereotypes the soldiers in the film as killing machines.  There was no implication whatsoever, given this, that ALL soldiers in Iraq were ruthless.
> 
> ...



I'm attempting to hold up a side of an argument that I don't neccessarily agree with in order to show the people who will not see the movie for ideologic reasons how actually seeing the movie may help them participate in this debate.

Steve, I agree with all of your points.  The information I used to formulate the above arguments came from seeing the movie and was also found in...I aplogize for being deceptive, though.

www.moorelies.com 

I read that site and a whole bunch of others before I went to see it a second time.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 16, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm attempting to hold up a side of an argument that I don't neccessarily agree with in order to show the people who will not see the movie for ideologic reasons how actually seeing the movie may help them participate in this debate.
> 
> Steve, I agree with all of your points.  The information I used to formulate the above arguments came from seeing the movie and was also found in...I aplogize for being deceptive, though.
> 
> ...




Upnorth,

If you read my post, you'll see where I recognized your viewing the film.  I wrote, "If you recall".

A noble effort on your part, I must say, in trying to get people to see the film.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 17, 2004)

Yeah, so I guess this is what Michael Moore forgot to add into his film.

http://infowars.com/alamo_flyer.htm

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2004)

Now this I find interesting ... Oh, yeah ... and 100 million dollars by the end of the weekend.

Conspiracy Theorists ... Dig In!!

The plane used to fly the Bin Laden's out of the United States is also used by the Bush White House 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4014-2004Jul21.html



			
				WashingtonPost said:
			
		

> _July 22nd, 2004 2:45 pm_
> *Plane Carried 13 Bin Ladens; *
> Manifest of Sept. 19, 2001, Flight From U.S. Is Released
> 
> ...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Now this I find interesting ... Oh, yeah ... and 100 million dollars by the end of the weekend.
> 
> Conspiracy Theorists ... Dig In!!
> 
> ...





Old news, isn't it?  I think this is covered in "House of Bush, House of Saud," by Unger.  

The White House has never denied they did this.  Nobody has tried to cover it up.  No conspiracy to be had...but many questions do in fact arise.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Old news, isn't it? I think this is covered in "House of Bush, House of Saud," by Unger.


I don't know if it is old news, but I had not heard it. I have not read Unger's book. That the flights existed, and the White House was aware of them is one thing ... That the White House charters the *same plane* for the Press Corps that the Saudi Arabia charted for the Bin Ladens, I think is interesting.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 1, 2004)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=493&e=12&u=/ap/moore_newspaper

BLOOMINGTON, Ill. - Filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-bashing documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" has apparently upset more than Republicans. The Pantagraph newspaper in Bloomington said Friday it sent a letter to Moore and the film's distributor, Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., asking for an apology for using what it said was a doctored front page in his movie.


The paper is seeking $1 in damages.

A scene early in the movie shows newspaper headlines related to the contested 2000 presidential election. It includes a shot of The Pantagraph's Dec. 19, 2001, front page, with the prominent headline, "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election."

The newspaper says that headline never appeared on that day.

The paper said the headline appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition but was not used on the front page. Instead, it was found in much smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects "only the opinions of the letter writer."

"If (Moore) wants to 'edit' The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job," the paper said.

Neither Lions Gate nor Moore were immediately available for comment Sunday.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2004)

Seems the paper studied under the Bill O'Reilly school of publicity. That was ONE DOLLAR in damages. The plot thickens.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 2, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Seems the paper studied under the Bill O'Reilly school of publicity. That was ONE DOLLAR in damages. The plot thickens.



Haha. I thought that was a bit odd.


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 7, 2004)

www.bowlingfortruth.com

This site touches a lot on Fahrenheit 9/11, as well as Bowling for Columbine. It's important to note that Moore's "Fact Checkers" are actually lawyers who go over every possible definition and interpretations of things he says, and makes sure he can't get sued. The difference between truth and legal truth is often staggering.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 5, 2004)

Fahrenheit 9/11 is released on home video and DVD today.



			
				michael moore said:
			
		

> 10/5/04
> Dear Friends,
> 
> Today's the day! You can now own your own copy of "Fahrenheit 9/11." Or, you can rent it. It is now available in thousands of stores across the country for you to take into your possession and use as your own personal weapon of George Bush's mass defeat. You can also just have a nice movie night at home with the kids. . . .
> ...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 5, 2004)

I'm glad to see it's being released before the election.  I was worried that, despite everything in the film, the public would forget about it by November.  I will definitely be purchasing it, if for nothing else than to see if I can find all the accusations against it.  Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 7, 2004)

A good day for Michael Moore.



> 'Fahrenheit' Burns Home-Video Sales Records
> By Brett Sporich / Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
> LOS ANGELES - Michael Moore's politically charged documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" sold about 2 million combined DVD and VHS units Tuesday (Oct. 5), its first day in release, according to industry sources.


If you feel you shouldn't support Mr. Moore by actually paying to see his movie, it is available for rent now for a couple of bucks.


Also, Mr. Moore has been travelling the country on his 'Slacker Uprising Tour'. This tour is about registering voters who have never before registered to vote.

One more thing ... there is this.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743271521/qid=1097151714/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-0943933-6590249?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Mike


----------



## Spud (Oct 7, 2004)

Republican party in Michigan is pursuing criminal charges against Moore, claiming that the door prizes (ramen noodles, clean underwear) from the slacker tour are akin to buying votes.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=796&e=10&u=/eo/15082

 Why doesn't he just buy a congressman like everyone else?


----------



## qizmoduis (Oct 7, 2004)

Spud said:
			
		

> Republican party in Michigan is pursuing criminal charges against Moore, claiming that the door prizes (ramen noodles, clean underwear) from the slacker tour are akin to buying votes.
> 
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=796&e=10&u=/eo/15082
> 
> Why doesn't he just buy a congressman like everyone else?



They don't like the competition.


----------



## Xequat (Oct 7, 2004)

Here's another site for ya, but it takes a while to read because it explains fiftysomething lies and deceits in the movie and backs them up with sources.  



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


I unfortunatley had a bias going in that it was going to be full of crap, not because it was anti-Bush by any means (Iactually kind of hoped to see some shadiness uncovered), but because Bowling for Columbine was full of crap.  So a lot of the stuff didn't surprise me.  But the one thing that bothered me was when he talked about the black voters being disenfranchised and their votes not counting.  He showed a line of black people and said that their votes were being thrown out because of "the color of their skin."  The fact is, those people were felons.  By law in Florida, you have to meet certain criteria to vote, and being a felon is not one of them.  So when Moore used the black voters to say that they were not allowed to vote, he was actully saying that black people ate felons.  I found that remark racists because he called blacks felons, and I found it racist because he was using them for his own personal gain, while they were none the wiser.  That's the only time I really got mad at the movie.


I hope most people realize that this movie was propaganda, and not a documentary.


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 7, 2004)

no... what Moore was saying is that people with the same NAME as a felon were not allowed to vote, whether they themselves were felons or not.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 7, 2004)

"So when Moore used the black voters to say that they were not allowed to vote, he was actully saying that black people ate felons."

And yet we laugh at Freud.


----------



## Xequat (Oct 7, 2004)

ROFL.  Wow.  I'm usually so good at spelling, too.  Black people ate felons.  I'll shut up and hide for a while now.


----------



## Xequat (Oct 7, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> no... what Moore was saying is that people with the same NAME as a felon were not allowed to vote, whether they themselves were felons or not.


Oh really?  OK, maybe I'll go watch it again...thanks, you are probably right.  I hope so, because although I didn't believe a lot of what was said, that was the only thing that really pissed me off.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 7, 2004)

Katherine Harris gave the Florida list of felons to a Texas database company to purge the list of felons from the Florida Voter Rolls. *Katherine Harris instructed* the computer company to use a very broad filter setting to determine who was a felon.

Something like this.

*Xequat* is a felon, and under Florida law is prohibited from voting.
*Xequate* is not a felon, but because the name is similar to Xequat, is removed from the Florida voter rolls.
*michaeledward* has the same birthday as Xequat, and lives on the same street as Xequat so he is removed from the Florida voter rolls.
*rmcrobertson *knows who Xequat is, and is therefore purged from teh Florida voting rolls.
Xequate, michaeledward, and rmcrobertson are not aware they have been stricken from the Florida voting rolls. They show up to vote on election day, and are told they can't vote. There is no recourse. There is no way to question the restriction until the voting is completed.

Now, in my example, I stretch a bit the reason why one might have been purged from the voter rolls. But, we must remember, the database company told Katherine Harris that her filter criteria would remove some names that should not be removed, and she instructed the company to go forward per her criteria. And, Katherine Harris was the leader of the Bush Campaign in Florida. 

These facts are not in dispute. It is more than just an 'appearance' of a conflict of interest. I'm not sure if this can be avoided in our political system. But in this instance, there were no 'checks and balances'.

Mike

p.s. I found this link, which explains some of the accusations of the disenfranchised.

http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap1-1.html


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 10, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And yet we laugh at Freud.


Who does?

On topic now: we rented and watched Farenheit 9/11 last night. Thank goodness there is no footage of the planes hitting the towers and people jumping/falling. I would have left the room and missed a thought-provoking movie.

In this country we are free to speak our minds -- but if we do, in as public a way as Michael Moore, everyone has an opinion on what's *right* with what was said as well as what's *wrong*. Lila Pederson brought tears to my eyes as a mother when she read her son's last letter to her/them. The footage of her wandering near the White House sobbing was equally moving, and I was saying exactly what she was saying about how parents shouldn't outlive their children. That there are parents who encourage their children to join the military is a fact of life and sometimes the _only_ alternative for a child in a poor urban family (remember the footage from Flint, MI?.) That they suffer when their children die is tragic and they deserve our sympathy. What parent doesn't want the best and better than they had/have for their children? _Someone's_ children are fighting for the rest of us, and _someone's_ children are going to die. Is it better to criticize these people or to volunteer to go yourself? Easier to criticize, of course.

My sons would be in Canada if they didn't have medical exemptions, you can bet on that. My personal choice and my personal beliefs. But -- I would _never_ tell a parent whose child has died that it was the wrong choice that they made for their children. Insult to injury. Shame on those of you who did. KT


----------

