FAHRENHEIT 9/11 June 25, 2004

[Joe Eccleston]

I have just returned from a 1pm screening of Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, which opens nationwide today. This is absolutely the most important and passionate political film that I have ever seen. If for some reason the movie is not yet showing at your local theaters, I am certain that it will be eventually, so keep an eye out for it and watch it as soon as it comes to town. At the very least, please watch the film before you vote in this November's presidential election. Even if you do not share Moore's political views, I think that it is your responsibility as an American citizen (and/or citizen of the world) to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

If you have a loved one, friend, or acquaintance who is, was, might be, or will be serving in the U.S. military, it is especially crucial that you watch Moore's film. The welfare of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces is among Moore's primary concerns, as it surely is for all of you.

Fahrenheit 9/11 directly addresses the issues that are on the minds of all Americans right now---and this is not at all an unpatriotic film. Moore does have a political viewpoint, to be sure, but in the end that viewpoint is expressed in a way that is at once respectful of patriotic sentiment and critical of the Bush administration. And I'll be honest: some of the images, scenes, and dialogue in the movie are sure to evoke very emotional responses from you, but I believe that these emotions are entirely necessary in order to appreciate the state of the nation and the world at the present time.

I am not usually one to act as a "political organizer," but I think that in this case it is my responsibility to put my timidity aside and implore you to go to the theater and watch Fahrenheit 9/11 at once. If you are not a regular theater-goer, please make an exception for this momentous film.

If you have any specific questions about the movie, I'd be glad to answer them.:asian:

 

[Phil Elmore]

This movie is propaganda, not a documentary. It is certainly political. It is also quite false.

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

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.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

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

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

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

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

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.

Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-*** entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

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

 

[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:

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?

The article above didn't cover this, just wanted to know... Joe:asian:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Thanks Joe - I will certainly go see it.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Link: Moore Lies

Link: Moore Exposed

 

[Joe Eccleston]

those links don't really answer my questions above... they just attack the film maker. would you have any other links that might answer the questions, without me having to read through "this guy is fat, and ignorant, and greedy, and illogical, and unpatriotic...". becuase i don't really care about Moore, i'm trying to get the information presented in the film verified. that's all. :asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Ahhh...but isn't is easier to attack the person, or link up a website that fits your worldview, then to actually see the movie yourself and critique it for yourself?

Yours,

Bill O'Rielly

 

[Joe Eccleston]

Ahhh...but isn't it easier to attack the person, or link up a website that fits your worldview, than to actually see the movie yourself and critique it for yourself?

Yours,

Bill O'Rielly

HAHAHahaHahA... That's so true, Paul. Here's a very telling article:

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Tops North American Box Office
Sunday June 27 11:30 AM PST
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -

Michael Moore's red-hot documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" earned more in its first three days of release across North America than his Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine" did in its entire run, the film's distributors said on Sunday.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore takes aim at President Bush, and the war in Iraq, opened at No. 1 after selling about $21.8 million worth of tickets in the United States and Canada since June 25.
The film opened in two theaters in New York on Wednesday to help build even more media buzz before expanding to a relatively modest 868 theaters two days later. (In contrast, most of the other movies in the top five were playing in more than 2,500 theaters each.)

Including the sales from the head start in New York, the film's total stands at $21.96 million. Moore's previous movie, "Bowling for Columbine," grossed about $21.5 million during its nine-month run, during which it peaked at about 250 theaters, according to Moore.

"This is a testament to Michael Moore. His voice resonates across the country in what I think we can all now fairly describe as America's movie," said Tom Ortenberg, the president of distribution at Lions Gate Films, which backed the movie.

He said in a conference call that the film played strongly in both Democrat and Republican states, even drawing sell-out crowds in Republican strongholds like Nassau County, New York and Fayetteville, N.C., home of Fort Bragg.

Lions Gate, a unit of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., partnered on the film's distribution with IFC Films, a unit of Cablevision Systems Corp.'s Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, and Miramax co-chairmen Harvey and Bon Weinstein. The Weinsteins bought the movie's rights with their own money after Miramax parent Walt Disney Co. refused to let them release it under the Miramax banner.

The movie cost about $6 million to make, according to Moore. Additionally, the distributors spent less than $10 million -- a relatively modest sum -- to market the movie, said Ortenberg.

 

[Don Roley]

those links don't really answer my questions above... they just attack the film maker.

The problem with a filmaker like Moore that has such an agenda, and is willing ot be decietfull about it, is that you never know if you are getting the whole story, or if maybe Moore dropped off facts that told the whole story and kept only to those that makes Bush look bad.

Case in point, a good part of the movie is taken up with the idea that Bush allowed the Suadi's and Bin Laden family to leave America just after 9-11. But Wesly Clark (hardly a Bush fan) testified before the 9-11 commitee that the decision was him at a much lower level than the white house and Bush had nothing to do with the descicion.

So, despite the fact that this was known before the movie came out, is there anything in the movie or in Moore's comments acknowledging this important point? No? Gee, then do you think that maybe the rest fo the movie is just as slanted with no respect for getting at the truth?

Let me look at just one of your questions to illustrate just how complicated the real situation might be and how much Moore could have fooled with it. I will take your first.

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?)

First of all, are you blaming a family that cast out Osama for his sins still? Last I heard, the only member that does not curse his name is his birth mother. It has been over a decade since Osama has been in good standing with his family and still people are not going to deal with the family? I find this rather distastefull since a good friend of mine has his real father serving life in prison for child molestation. He has not talked to his father in over a decade, just like the Bin Laden family has not talked with Osama. But the guilt of one family member seems to overshadow the entire family forever- that just is not right.

Secondly, have you looked at the population of Saudi Arabia? It is much, much smaller than many American states. And over half of the population is under 20. So the older, business elite is going to be pretty small. They also have larger famileis due to polygamy laws. The end result is that it is kind of hard NOT to have some sort of relationship with a distant relative or in-law when you do business at the highest levels in Saudi Arabia. And do you know how many people are involved in the Carlyle Group?

So, are you sure that Moore would take these things into account and give the whole story, or just present the facts in as damming a way as possible and ignore anything that may explain it to people's satisfaction?

With what Clark says compared with what Moore put in his film, you have to assume that Moore would just do whatever it takes to bring down the president. His deceit and his agenda is fair grounds for discussion. If he were balanced or fair like we expect from real media people, we could expect that he would at least mention facts that run counter to his accusations. He does not. He has proven to twist things in such a way to make them as damming as possible.

Thus, we can not trust anything he says and can not take it on faith. As such, the movie is worthless as a source of facts.

 

[Joe Eccleston]

First of all, are you blaming a family that cast out Osama for his sins still? Last I heard, the only member that does not curse his name is his birth mother. It has been over a decade since Osama has been in good standing with his family and still people are not going to deal with the family? I find this rather distastefull since a good friend of mine has his real father serving life in prison for child molestation. He has not talked to his father in over a decade, just like the Bin Laden family has not talked with Osama. But the guilt of one family member seems to overshadow the entire family forever- that just is not right.

If you saw the movie, you'd know that after the scenes which connected the bin Laden family to the Carlyle group, and their leaving for Saudi Arabia from the US on 13 Sept without the FBI investigating them, Moore also showed footage of a bin Laden family wedding (I believe that was in Afghanistan), attended by Osama, with the very family that claimed to have "ostracized" him. This was actually what Moore wanted to point out, not that the Bush family and the bin Laden family are connected, but that the bin Ladens are actually still in contact with their "black sheep" of a son, Osama.

As I've said, Moore is biased against Bush, this is obvious. He hates Bush and the Big Business/Big Money he represents. There's no point discussing this, because we have no need verifying this information. Moore is not "media people" he is an independent film-maker, don't confuse that with a journalist. My questions above though require some answers. Saying, "Moore is fat, biased, unpatriotic, and greedy" won't really answer these questions, because these questions are not about Moore, but rather about the contents presented in his film.

Would you care to go on with the other questions? (it might help if you see the movie first, so we'll have a basis of discussion):asian:

 

[Don Roley]

If you saw the movie, you'd know that after the scenes which connected the bin Laden family to the Carlyle group, and their leaving for Saudi Arabia from the US on 13 Sept without the FBI investigating them, Moore also showed footage of a bin Laden family wedding (I believe that was in Afghanistan), attended by Osama, with the very family that claimed to have "ostracized" him. This was actually what Moore wanted to point out, not that the Bush family and the bin Laden family are connected, but that the bin Ladens are actually still in contact with their "black sheep" of a son, Osama.

We are talking about Moore, who has been proven to be rather distrustworthy by not taking into account the testimony by Clarke in his attack on Bush. We can not put it past him to kind of slew the dates, etc of this wedding to try to make his point.

After a program like 60 Minutes deals with the story of the Bin Laden family still having dealings with their son (I know his mother refused to stop talking to him) I may believe it. But the fact that no legitimate source with a reputation for trustworthness and honesty seems to want to touch it tells me that it is another case of Moore probably playing fast and loose with the facts.

Again, you can't trust someone like Moore to tell you the entire story or mention things that may let the object of his witch hunts off the hook if he knows about them. When a source that is more trustworthy backs him up, then I may start listening. But so far, the silence from the regular media is kind of interesting to say the least. You would expect them to back up a lot of what he said if there was any merit to it. But all we see is a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts taking up the charge.

 

[Bill Lear]

When a source that is more trustworthy backs him up, then I may start listening. But so far, the silence from the regular media is kind of interesting to say the least. You would expect them to back up a lot of what he said if there was any merit to it. But all we see is a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts taking up the charge.

It appears that much of "the regular media" may be in the President's pocket. Miramax (owned by Disney) pulled out of producing the film because Disney is "a nonpartisan company" according to Michael Eisner. I think it had more to do with Disney avoiding a financial mess in Florida. Here's an article by ABC news (Not to be confused with the ABC owned by Disney here in the U.S. :uhyeah: ):

Disney blocks new Michael Moore doco Thursday, May 6, 2004. 8:09am (AEST)

The Walt Disney group has banned its Miramax Films subsidiary from distributing a documentary by award winning director Michael Moore critical of US President George W Bush's alleged links to the family of Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, Disney says on its website.

Moore's film, Farenheit 911, criticises Mr Bush's policies before the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States and alleges financial connections between the Bush family, its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families, including that of bin Laden.

Disney head Michael Eisner told CNBC that Farenheit 911 "is a totally appropriate film...but we did not want to have it in the middle of a political process. We are a nonpartisan company".

An entry at this month's Cannes Film Festival, the documentary closely explores the US government's role in the evacuation of bin Laden relatives from the United States after the September 11 attacks.

Moore describes the film as a "comedy".

Disney has a contractual agreement with Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein to prevent Miramax from distributing films under certain circumstances, including having an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating which precludes viewing by minors.

But executives at Miramax believe Disney's ban on Moore's documentary falls outside the scope of the agreement and say they are prepared to go to mediation on the issue, people involved in the production of the film told The New York Times.

Miramax, which Disney bought 10 years ago, became principal investor in Moore's project a year ago.

"We're discussing the issue with Disney," Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said in a statement.

"We're looking at all our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Disney spokeswoman Zenia Mucha said Disney would not budge from its position.

"We advised both (Moore's) agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax. That decision stands," she said.

The ban if enforced would block the distribution of Farenheit 911 in North America but overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, Disney executives said.

Moore won a special Cannes prize two years ago for Bowling for Columbine, which went on to win an Oscar.

"I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter," Moore said in a letter posted on his own website.

It quotes The New York Times as saying the reason Disney banned his film was that it might "endanger millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will anger the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush", the President's brother.

Moore said he was going ahead with plans to show his film in Cannes this month.

"Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show," said his letter.

"But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer - because, after all, it is a free country."

--AFP

 

[Don Roley]

It appears that much of "the regular media" may be in the President's pocket.

Uh....right.

For years I have been reading Arab conspiracy theories about how the world's media and such are run by a conspiracy. Now I can get the same from Martialtalk.

And I think I should point out that Moore contridicted himself on a talk show on the matter of the Miramax distributation and that no one has ever proven his rather looney claims of the Bush family putting pressure on Disney.

But of course, if the entire media in the US and overseas is controlled by the secret conspiracy, we would never hear about any proof to Moore's accusations, would we?

 

[michaeledward]

We are talking about Moore, who has been proven to be rather distrustworthy by not taking into account the testimony by Clarke in his attack on Bush. We can not put it past him to kind of slew the dates, etc of this wedding to try to make his point.

After a program like 60 Minutes deals with the story of the Bin Laden family still having dealings with their son (I know his mother refused to stop talking to him) I may believe it. But the fact that no legitimate source with a reputation for trustworthness and honesty seems to want to touch it tells me that it is another case of Moore probably playing fast and loose with the facts.

Again, you can't trust someone like Moore to tell you the entire story or mention things that may let the object of his witch hunts off the hook if he knows about them. When a source that is more trustworthy backs him up, then I may start listening. But so far, the silence from the regular media is kind of interesting to say the least. You would expect them to back up a lot of what he said if there was any merit to it. But all we see is a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts taking up the charge.

So, what you are saying is .. that regardless of the facts, that Michael Moore is the messenger, you will not believe. I understand.

Mike



A mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open.

 

[michaeledward]

that no one has ever proven his rather looney claims of the Bush family putting pressure on Disney.

. . . we would never hear about any proof to Moore's accusations, would we?

Can you please reference the 'accusations' of which you speak. To my knowledge, Mr. Moore has never accused the Disney company of being pressured by the Bush family. Such a claim should be substantiated, and if true, would have profound impact on the reception of the Movie.

Mr. Moore has said that Disney refused to distribute the film because they felt releasing it would jeopardize some upcoming tax legislation in Florida.

That Michael Eisner makes a business decision is a very different thing from the "Bush family putting pressure on Disney".

Mike

 

[Don Roley]

So, what you are saying is .. that regardless of the facts, that Michael Moore is the messenger, you will not believe. I understand.

Nope,
I am saying that if the only source is Michael Moore with no supporting evidence, then I will not believe it. And I do not trust him to not distort the facts, hence the need for independent confirmation.

And can you show me any proof for his little claims like Jeb Bush threatened to pull Disney's tax breaks (or for that matter- the tax breaks that were supposably going ot be pulled) by a source other than Moore? Not a new story that quotes Moore, but one that uses a source other than Moore?

 

[michaeledward]

And can you show me any proof for his little claims like Jeb Bush threatened to pull Disney's tax breaks (or for that matter- the tax breaks that were supposably going ot be pulled) by a source other than Moore? Not a new story that quotes Moore, but one that uses a source other than Moore?

I never offered proof. It was a claim made by Moore, and can be viewed on the Michael Moore web site.

Of course, others have made the claim.

Family-oriented Disney ran the risk of a financial backfire if it annoyed customers or the government officials who set the rules that the media conglomerate plays, said investor Hal Vogel, who does not own Disney shares.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040625/media_disney_fahrenheit911_1.html

Disney's Eisner has said he wouldn't distribute the film because of its overt political themes.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BB51EA58C%2D0E7D%2D4893%2D97BB%2DE00AC50B6AE1%7D

 

[Don Roley]

You may note that none of the sources you mentioned back the claims that there was pressure by Jeb Bush to supress the film. They talk about financial backlash if Disney annoys the public, and the unwillingness to deal with such an overtly politcal themed movie. NOTHING about pressure by Bush, and no one has provided any proof to back up Moore's accusations that this was the reason.

Strange, huh? Easier for me to think that Moore made up the entire thing to hurt Bush and draw attention to his movie than it is for me to accept that no one could have found some sort of proof to his accusations and driven up their ratings with the scandal.

 

[michaeledward]

Again, you are saying there are accusations that the Bush family pressured Disney... I never said that. To my knowledge, Moore never said that.

But ... you said it. And now you say, you can't find anyone who said it. Geesh.

Mike

You may note that none of the sources you mentioned back the claims that there was pressure by Jeb Bush to supress the film. They talk about financial backlash if Disney annoys the public, and the unwillingness to deal with such an overtly politcal themed movie. NOTHING about pressure by Bush, and no one has provided any proof to back up Moore's accusations that this was the reason.

Can you please reference the 'accusations' of which you speak. To my knowledge, Mr. Moore has never accused the Disney company of being pressured by the Bush family. Such a claim should be substantiated, and if true, would have profound impact on the reception of the Movie.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Again, you are saying there are accusations that the Bush family pressured Disney... I never said that. To my knowledge, Moore never said that.

But ... you said it. And now you say, you can't find anyone who said it. Geesh.

It definitely takes effort to find out exactly what Moore *did* say, then investigate the validity of those claims.

It's alot easier to avoid disrupting one's world-view if one simply lets others do the thinking for them. It's an easy trap to fall into, and certainly one I've been guilty of in the past.