Did you see it: Fahrenheit 9/11 ?

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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,
with more than four months to go before the
presidential election,an unprecedented pro-
portion of Amercans say they have no doubt
as to who they will vote for.With voters to battle over,the real fight will be for
the candidates to energize their bases and
make sure that as many of them as possible
get out to vote.

That may or may not be accurate (how many
surveys ever are?),but if it is,Michael Moore ’s
controversial Fahrenheit 9/11 may be more
useful than I felt when I was watching it.I
don ’t know that Moore ’s film will change the
mind of anyone planning to vote for George
W.Bush in November,though I ’m hard
pressed to put myself in the mind of such a
person.Obviously some people just aren ’t
paying attention —and those are the people
I was hoping Moore was trying to reach.But
Fahrenheit 9/11 is more effective at summing
up what anyone who has ventured a peek past
television news in the past few years (and cer-
tainly all regular readers of this publication)
already knows about the accomplishments of
the Bush regime than it is as a primer to the
uninformed and otherwise misled.

The title,for anyone who doesn ’t recognize
the reference,is a play on Ray Bradbury ’s
novel Fahrenheit 451 ,about a future society in
which books are burned as a form of social
control.Fahrenheit 451 is the temperature
at which paper burns;“Fahrenheit 9/11 ,” went
an apparently abandoned slogan for the
new film,is “the temperature at which truth
burns.”

Let me say right off the bat that I like Michael
Moore a lot.Those who don ’t call him a muck-
raker (a charge he probably wouldn ’t deny),
accuse him of juggling facts and of having an
“agenda.”But no documentary filmmaker is
ever wholly objective,and Moore ’s agenda
is at least an honorable one.As for playing
loose with the facts,the allegations against
him are usually petty nitpicking about things
that don ’t change his central arguments.In a
better world he wouldn ’t do it;still,it ’s nice
to see the conservative right being the ones
on the defensive for a change.At his worst,
Moore can be a bully boy,but he ’s a bully boy
for a side that has damn few of them against
a side that is stinking with them.

Maybe high expectations account
for my moderate disappointment
with Fahrenheit 9/11 .After years
of watching the Bush administra-
tion lie and obfuscate in order to
steer this country into a war,while
the mainstream media parroted
what it was told and ignored evi-
dence to the contrary,I and most
people I know yearned for some-
one with access to a wide audi-
ence to make a lucid,concise case
compiling the last four years.It ’s
a task that overwhelms my abili-
ties (have you ever tried to talk to
someone who believes that Bush
is a great man because he stopped
Saddam Hussein from arming Al
Queda with nuclear and chemical
weapons to use against the Unit-
ed States?)so I shouldn ’t blame
Moore for also falling short.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a more or less chronologi-
cal indictment of Bush ’s presidency.It begins
with the election of 2000,which I think was
an unfortunate choice on Moore ’s part.He
rehashes how the post-election was fought,
manipulated and ultimately decided.There ’s
no doubt in my mind that these are events
that need to be repeated over and over un-
til more people realize that the election was
stolen by the party in power.But the begin-
ning of this movie isn ’t the place to do it:it ’s
a sequence that will polarize audiences,put-
ting many on the offensive.

(Those very folk may not even notice that
Moore often takes the Democratic party to
task for letting their Republicans roll over
them so easily;detailing the post-election
struggle,he reminds us how passive Gore et
al were in that heated month.)

Moore argues that Bush ’s presidency was foun-
dering until September 11.(His depiction of
that day,incidentally,is restrained,tasteful
and very effective.)The film ’s first coup is a
doozy.When the planes hit the World Trade
Center,Bush was making an appearance at a
kindergarten reading class in Florida.Moore
found a video of Bush taken by a teacher.It
shows him receiving the news of the second
plane from an aide,then continuing to sit
in front of the class as the children read for
nearly ten minutes,apparently with no idea
what to do.

Looking at his blank visage,you can ’t help
but wonder:just how did this poor,unquali-
fied fool get into this of fice?That ’s one thing
that Moore doesn ’t address.He talks about
Bush ’s past,from his no-show military career
through his business ventures.But there ’s no
discussion of how Bush got into public of fice
or who his backers are;no mention at all of
his career as Texas governor.

What Moore does spend some time on is the
Bush family ’s business links to the bin Laden
family and other Saudi oil millionaires,who
have invested as much as $1.4 billion in Bush-
af filiated businesses.He notes what has been
reported openly but which many Americans
seem not to know:a few days after September
11,2001,while American air space was of ficial-
ly shut down,30 government and commercial
planes were used to transport members of the
bin Laden family and several hundred other
Saudis out of the United States.

It ’s worthy that Moore is working to bring
this information to a wider audience.Still,he
hasn ’t learned anything that wasn ’t reported
several years ago (albeit only minimally in the
mainstream press.).It ’s a story that cries out
for some real investigative digging,which is
either beyond Moore ’s abilities or his time lim-
its —a thorough indictment of the Bush gov-
ernment could hardly be expected to fit into
a two hour film.

Former national security advisor Richard
Clarke tells Moore that when he was working
in the administration it was clear to him that
Bush ’s advisors were looking for an excuse to
go after Iraq,and that the events of September
11 were seen as that opportunity.He character-
izes the invasion of Afghanistan as a formality
on the way to the real thing.

But the film does little to speculate just why
all of Bush ’s men are so obsessed with Iraq.
(Many of them have been for years.)Moore ex-
plains the war in terms of oil and as an excuse
to maintain an Orwellian campaign of fear,
where the government realizes that frightened
people are easier to control.

The final section of the film is both the most
moving and the weakest.Moore concentrates
on the effect the Iraq war has had on the sol-
diers who have fought it.It ’s impossible not to
be moved by the sight of a hospital filled with
young men missing hands,arms or legs,or by
the grief of a mother whose world view was
changed when her son died fighting what he
called in his last letter home “a meaningless
war.”Still,these sequences speak more to the
horror of all war than they do to this misbegot-
ten con flict in general.I hate to say this,but I
think Moore included some of this to work on
the emotions of any viewers who may have been
otherwise untouched by his history lesson.
Unlike Moore ’s other films,he doesn ’t use
much humor.The few scenes where he does
stage consciousness-raising stunts a la his sa-
tirical television shows seem forced,even
silly.There are moments of bitter humor,but
they ’re quick (and probably more effective for
it).

Despite my reservations,I hope that everyone
makes an effort to see this film,if only to prove
that Americans are concerned about the path
we ’ve been led down.Moore obviously wants
nothing less than to have Bush voted out of of-
fice.I share that hope,and so I would love to
learn that Fahrenheit 9/11 opens the eyes of a
lot of people to things that they didn ’t previ-
ously know.More importantly,I fervently hope
that it will spark some more heated debate on
the merits of Moore ’s accusations in the main-
stream media,which has abrogated its duties
in recent years to a shameful degree.

A note about the film’s R rating:Is it deserved?
Perhaps,but a lot of films that are less appro-
priate for kids regularly get a PG-13.There is
some profanity,as well as a beheading and an
official execution,which is seen from so far
away that I wouldn’t have known what was go-
ing on without the explanatory subtitle.There
are scenes of the effects of war,but as Moore
properly notes,teenagers who are old enough
to be recruited by the military deserve to see
what they may been getting into.If the R rat-
ing stands,I would hope that theater owners
ignore it,at least letting teens in to see it.It ’s
not like the MPAA ratings are law and it would
be interesting to see what would happen if they
were challenged.

 

[Don Roley]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.