Did you see it: Fahrenheit 9/11 ?

[hardheadjarhead]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[SMP]

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]

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?

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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

http://infowars.com/alamo_flyer.htm

upnorthkyosa