I finally caught up with Michael Moore’s…you know, I’m not sure that “documentary” is the right word since Moore’s bias is so clear. Maybe “fucumentary” might be more appropriate.
It’s a staggering piece of work. Even with the understanding that Moore is out to get Bush, nevertheless the most dámņìņg moments come from simple facts: The refusal of a single Senator to join with the Black caucus in protesting the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida; the entanglement of Bush family business interests with bin Laden and Saudi Arabia business interests; the contradictory statements of Bush’s own people (their assurances in early 2000 that Saddam is not a threat as opposed to their later proclamations that he is); the extended, agonizing, deer-in-the-headlights look on Bush’s face during seven minutes of non-action at a Florida Kindergarten; the children in Iraq post bombing, with arms blown off, legs blown off…a little boy screaming as medics desperately try to sew pieces of his face together. An elderly Iraqi woman screaming that God has foresaken them, that her house and all her neighbor’s houses were destroyed, that she’s been to five funerals in the previous week.
Everyone of voting age should see this film.
PAD
• 
Well said Peter. Pretty much my reaction. I knew a lot already, but there was still so much I didn’t know. And as you say, the pure facts are the most dámņìņg. I always felt that was one of Moore’s strong points: he lets the people condemn themselves. He lets Bush’ own words show him upt for what he is.
I mean, we have to go after Saddam because of his ties to Bin Laden (Which aren’t there). We conquer the entire country of Iraq (killing more civilians than died at 9/11)all over that reason. Yet then Bush himself says he’s not really ‘spending much time on Bin Laden anymore”. Not important. The guy WE KNOW did it. The REASON (according to him) that we’re there!
Infuriating…. and yes the plight of the voters in Florida was heart wrenching. Not a single senator.
As for Moore as a documentary maker, he’s always pretty upfront that his work shows his opinion. A few movie critics pointed that out too; he should be seen as an opinion columnist. As long as what he shows is the truth, I have no problem with that.
Especially considering that there’s a legion of right-wing pundits out there who hurl propaganda at us on a daily basis!
(I love how he said to that interviewer that her network’s news was propaganda too, and that they should’ve done their dámņ work and ask Bush the hard questions back then!)
Doesn’t open over here for another couple of days. Still planning to see it though.
BTW – everyone should look at BushGame.com too. Despite the gratiuitous swearing, lots of good points made there.
Condoleeza Rice quote from Fahrenheit 9-11:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.
“It would be like skipping the front page and relying just on Boondocks “What do you mean ?Thats how i get all my news:)
Seriously ,i have not seen the movie yet but plan to.I have my own opinions and know most of the facts already (or at least think i do) but I want to see what he has to say.Dont expect revelations but it looks to be a good way to spend my movie money…I refuse to spend dough on
WHITE CHICKS:(
By the way ,anyone else find it interesting everytime we “find”WMDS they are either old and /or they are useless????
By the way has Huey Freeman already given the most embarrassing Black person awards ??(boondocks reference)I think the Wayans have won in a landslide:)
I actually saw White Chicks at the drive in (it was paired with Spiderman 2, so whoever it was who decides what movies to pair up must have been on crack that day.) I can honestly say I have seen worse movies in my life…but not many.
I’m porbalby in the miority on this one, being a liberal, but I find this film to be no interest to me at all. It’s propaganda, and I consider porpaganda to be a tool unworthy of the honest. I would rather see (if you pardon teh expression) a fair and balanced expose, a las 60 Minutes, than a diatribe.
I also cannot stand Moore. My wife compared him to Rush Limbaugh, and I think she’s right. His kind of “discourse” does nothing to advance the cause he claims to represent.
And I just don’t think this will change anyone’s mind. Who’s going to see it? Not the diehard Republicans, and not the apathetic.
How cool it must have been to see Spiderman 2 at a Drive-In!
How unbelievably creepy it must have been to see the “white” Wayans “chicks” the size of Godzilla.
“How cool it must have been to see Spiderman 2 at a Drive-In!”
Yeah, but I’d rather see it on IMAX– they start the films before it’s totally dark and I was bitten by dozens of mosquitoes…and with no resulting superpowers, I might add.
Still, the drive-in experience is fun, especially when you have 13 members of the family there for the ride. I still have some trouble adjusting to seeing “real” movies at the drive in though–except for Kill Bill, I’d rather they were reserved for cheesy chop sockey flicks, the occasional Andy Milligan atrocity, and some Euro trash zombie effort. But that’s just me.
“I actually saw White Chicks at the drive in (it was paired with Spiderman 2, so whoever it was who decides what movies to pair up must have been on crack that day.) I can honestly say I have seen worse movies in my life…but not many.”
This wasn’t in Connecticut, was it? Phil the Showkiller on Dan Patrick’s ESPN Radio show said he went to a drive-in this weekend and saw S-M2 and White Chicks there.
Ok, put me in the “Apathetic” category (yeah, like that’s a suprise).
Until now I have avoided commenting on the subject of Fahrenheit 9/11 in part because I won’t be watching it until I can do so for free and in part because the whole thing seems pointless. That’s not to say that I don’t respect the opinions of PAD and my fellow posters on this blog. In fact, the discussions here tend to be far more thought out and seem to have some genuine value.
I say it’s pointless because each of us has pretty much made up their minds. As far as my spending money to see it, well, I just don’t like being preached at.
My opinion of Mr. Moore is also fairly low. Not because of where he stands on certain subjects, though. I’m certain that he and I would agree on as many things as we disagree on. My issue with Mr. Moore is that he tends to use part of a story or quote to make his point. Then he embelishes it. That kind of practice just doesn’t fly with me. Further, knowing that Mr. Moore operates in such a manner requires me to question his motives.
Of course, that’s just me. I am not and would not suggest that someone not see Mr. Moores film just because I don’t trust him.
Afterthought:
Why do we have the nerve to act suprised anytime a political figure is caught in something shady?
Salutations,
Mitch
Actually, according to Moore, some Republicans have seen the film and find they cannot in good conscience vote for Bush again. I thought the movie was very powerful. There were a couple of places that tears streamed down my face. My Dad said he teared up in several places as well. The film is not just propaganda, although he admits he did not attempt to be fair. There are parts of the film that inform. Go and listen to the soldiers, so gung-ho at the start and then listen to what they say now. I am pretty well informed, but there were things in the movie that I did not know, mostly because the press seems to have given up on presenting all the facts to the American people. I recommend this to all. Go see it and make up your mind about the points he’s making. I think this is the most important film of the year.
By the way, in this film he checked and rechecked facts. While his opinions are there, he did not play fast and loose this time to make his point. He didn’t need to.
Anyone who dismisses this film out of hand is wrong. Anyone who thinks of it simply as propoganda is wrong. Anyone who thinks this film should be skipped is wrong. Anyone who thinks Moore should be ignored is wrong. Anyone who thinks it’s just two hours of Moore ranting is wrong.
If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you’re wrong.
PAD
Here is my post at mymac.com on this:
Well, spent twenty minutes in line waiting to buy tickets to the 7:25 Friday night showing of Fahrenheit 9/11, the new Michael Moore film that opened today.
I make no bones about my political bend. I will also be the first to tell you I am a huge Moore fan. I own Bowling, Roger and Me, and The Awful Truth (the series) on DVD, and have watched them all numerous times. That said, I knew Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a different Michael Moore film, unlike his other outings. I knew from early on that this was not a
Karen:
“By the way, in this film he checked and rechecked facts. While his opinions are there, he did not play fast and loose this time to make his point. He didn’t need to.”
Hi Karen.
The link below will take you to a site where a differing perspective is offered with source links to back up his position. I’m not attempting to start a fact war. It’s just that you strike me as someone who will examine different points of view to solidify your position.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
PAD:
“Anyone who dismisses this film out of hand is wrong. Anyone who thinks of it simply as propoganda is wrong. Anyone who thinks this film should be skipped is wrong. Anyone who thinks Moore should be ignored is wrong. Anyone who thinks it’s just two hours of Moore ranting is wrong.
If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you’re wrong.”
Hi PAD,
I may be wrong, but I’m guessing that some of that was directed at me. Please allow me to provide some clarification on my position.
First, I was unclear as to my viewing intention. I have every intention to see this film. I will not, however, go out of my way to do so. I’ll be waiting for cable. As I stated earlier, that is not a political decision on my part.
Second, I am familiar with Mr. Moores prior works, in particular “Bowling for Columbine.” His prior works provide a documented modus operandi: The use of partial facts to elicit a specific response. My comments are not about the content of “Fahrenheit 9/11” but rather they are a commentary on Mr. Moore’s methodology, which I find to be disagreeable.
Again, I respect and value the opinions of Those Who Post Here. If we disagree on some subjects that does not lessen my respect for anyone. It just strengthens my belief that differing views can keep us honest with ourselves.
Footnote:
Please bear in mind that I have no interest in defending the action of President Bush. I think the man is an easily led automaton at best.
Salutations,
Mitch
Dammit!!
PAD, I forgot to ask about the word “fucumentary.”
In the ‘fuc-‘ part is that a soft U sound and a hard K sound you were evoking? This is just one of those things like irony that do not always transmit well through text.
Thanks,
Mitch
I work in a theatre up here in Ontario. I actually work at the only theatre in the city that doesn’t have it playing. People are always coming up to me in box office and asking why we don’t have it playing. I don’t know the figures, but it has been doing very well up here. I have really been looking forward to seeing it.
To Bill and insideman and anybody else who doesn’t know:
IT’S SPIDER-MAN. Normally, it’s Spider-Man, but I needed to shout to get your attention.
The character has been around for over 40 years. Also, this is a comic book writers’ site. That combination should make all of us want to spell the character name correctly.
To Bill and insideman and anybody else who doesn’t know:
IT’S SPIDER-MAN. Normally, it’s Spider-Man, but I needed to shout to get your attention.
The character has been around for over 40 years. Also, this is a comic book writers’ site. That combination should make all of us want to spell the character name correctly.
Karen says:
“By the way, in this film he checked and rechecked facts. While his opinions are there, he did not play fast and loose this time to make his point. He didn’t need to.”
According to whom? Moore?
I don’t doubt that there are many facts in the film, the blind squirrel finding the occasional nut and all, but if one becomes a dittohead for Moore you will be in the same position as those who do it for Limbaugh. Check the facts for yourself. If you still think that we went to war in Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline…well, oooookay. At least it will be an informed bone headed opinion.
But, again, I admire the skill with which Moore constructs his arguments–irrelevant of whether there is always truth to them. This is NOT, as some have claimed, akin to Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (I don’t see how anyone who has seen both films could make the connection–no offence to Moore but he hasn’t one percent the cinematic genius of Ms. Riefenstahl who, one hopes might again be given a camera now that she is currently residing in Hëll). I think a better comparison would be Viet Harlan’s Jude Suss or maybe the documentary that Woody Allen shoots in Crimes and Misdemeanors.
CNN Headline News reports that Fahrenheit 9/11 has made another $21 million. That’s $45 million or more in ten days. Pretty impressive for a documentary.
“To Bill and insideman and anybody else who doesn’t know:
IT’S SPIDER-MAN. Normally, it’s Spider-Man, but I needed to shout to get your attention.
The character has been around for over 40 years. Also, this is a comic book writers’ site. That combination should make all of us want to spell the character name correctly.”
Wow, I haven’t felt this bad since that time Batman beat the snot out of me, yelling “Ðámņ it, it’s not “The Batman”, its just BATMAN!!!”
I loved the film.
Here’s what is most important about it even if you disagree with Moore: The film raises questions which none of the other media has raised.
And if the media were doing its job it would A) have raised the questions in the first place and B) tell us where Moore gets it wrong, where he gets it right.
If Moore is wrong, then the media should do the job that they are supposed to do: prove it.
What? The media’s job is to sell us toilet paper and hamburgers? Oh. Okay. In that case they are doing their job very well.
And Moore is doing the job they USED to do.
My problem with allowing films like this to affect one
PAD wrote:
“the extended, agonizing, deer-in-the-headlights look on Bush’s face during seven minutes of non-action at a Florida Kindergarten…”
Bush did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. In a time of immediate crisis like that, he doesn’t make decisions. He does what he’s told to do. There was absolutely nothing he could have done at the time to prevent any further attacks from happening. They already were underway.
The teams of people around Bush were in constant communication with the White House, the NSA (and any other alphabet named branch of the government) and their job is to take care of the president. His job at that time is to let them do theirs, not to micromanage their actions. And if there was a decision that had to be made in that instant, that’s why there’s a Vice-President.
Bush was in a safe and secure location. The airspace within hundreds of miles near that school was being closely monitored because he was in the area. The roads to and from the school were all under constant supervision by local, state and federal officers. That same airspace and roads would have to be cleared for the president to leave. The Secret Service knows their job, and they do it well, but it takes time to clear the airspace and roads. Only after it was determined that it was safe to have someplace different to go to, would it make sense to leave. Instead of being upset over Bush sitting there for 7 minutes, be impressed that the law enforcement officials could make it secure enough for the president to leave in only 7 minutes (as in roads to the airport cleared and the airspace near the airport empty).
I find it amazing that so many people on the “left” seem to see something wrong with the way he acted in the classroom. If he had rushed up to leave, there would have been complaints about his abandoning the kids and leaving them there to die. Or if he would have jumped up and acted like Harrison Ford style president, there would have been the complaints that he’s a Loose Cannon Cowboy, or something like that. No matter what he does, there are people that will find something wrong. I would be interested if Michael Moore even asked the Secret Service what was going on at the time, or is he just putting his own slant on the video without knowing (or worse, not caring about) the entire background story?
Mitch,
I read much of the link and I think a lot of what he says are opinion, too. I read Greg Palast’s book about the 2000 election and there were a LOT more people disenfranchised than 1100. A high percentage of them were African American. People who had similar names, not just the same name as a felon were kicked off the rolls. The company that did the data processing has admitted to not doing the research necessary to take the proper people off the rolls. Michael Moore has said that the truth is in his documentary, but also his opinions. When he speaks or asks questions he has said it is definitely slanted. But most of this film is letting the people in it speak for themselves. While he is portraying his point of view in many instances, I think the site you sent me to has info that is equally slanted. I went to the movie knowing Moore had a point of view. So do all the posters. This is not in question. Most of the facts he brought out, I’d already seen in other sources, probably more reliable than a movie producer. There were some things I didn’t know and others that I didn’t know the extent of. It was his opinion that FOX was a leader in calling the election, but that the news organizations swung back and forth is a matter of record. The site looked like is was honestly trying to find the errors and was not rabidly going against Moore, I will give it that.
Bill,
I don’t think we went to Afghanistan to build a pipeline. I do think this administration jumped on the opportunity. I don’t know of many liberals who were against going there because the one who orchestrated 9/11 was there and being protected and supported by that government. Personally, I will never be a dittohead for anyone. I like the truth too much and no one doesn’t have an agenda.
Jeff,
He SHOULD have said,”Excuse me children, I’m afraid something has come up that as President I need to deal with” He then should have gotten the info, not left it to his underlings. This was a time for a leader to make decisions, not those under him. He wasted 7 minutes in which he could have been briefed so he could make informed decisions. He should have ordered the various agencies to communicate and ordered the Air Force to get some planes up to investigate any other airliner going off course. Instead he sat. This is a leader?
Karen says:
“Bill,
I don’t think we went to Afghanistan to build a pipeline. I do think this administration jumped on the opportunity. I don’t know of many liberals who were against going there because the one who orchestrated 9/11 was there and being protected and supported by that government.”
Karen, meet Michael Moore:
“”Declare war?” War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f—wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request….
But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After bin Laden’s previous act of terror, our last elected president went and bombed what he said was “bin Laden’s camp” in Afghanistan — but instead just killed civilians.”
or
” No one wants to talk about politics right now — except our installed leaders in Washington. Trust me, they are talking politics night and day, and those discussions involve sending our kids off to fight some invisible enemy and to indiscriminately bomb Afghans or whoever they think will make us Americans feel good.
I feel I have a responsibility as one of those Americans who doesn’t feel good right now to speak out and say what needs to be said: That we, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants. I know it’s a hard thing to hear right now, but if I and others don’t say it, I fear we will soon be in a war that will do NOTHING to protect us from the next terrorist attack.”
(Both quotes from Moore in the week after 9/11)
In all fairness, Moore seems to have changed his mind–even to the point of critisizing Bush for NOT going into Afghanistan sooner! (or did I imagine the part where we are told that Bush gave Bin Laden a 2 month head start).
Karen,
You seem to think that no one in the governmental agencies did anything during those 7 minutes? “Gee, we just had 2 airliners crash into the WTC towers. Let’s all just sit here with our thumbs stuck up our @ss until the President gets finished reading to the kiddies before we even consider doing anything. Pass those Krispy Kremes, willya?”
Air Force planes were scrambled, but it was already too late. As much as folks are complaining now about Bush that morning, I can only imagine what it would have been like if he actually did manage to give the order to shoot down an unarmed civilian airliner over US airspace.
There was nothing Bush could have done until he got to the communications center in Air Force One. He couldn’t travel to AF1 until the roads were clear. That’s not his decision, but the decision that’s in the books for the Secret Service. He let them do their job to get him where he needed to be safely, not trampling over them and giving them conflicting orders. Yes, that’s a leader.
Jeff, there was something very important that Bush could’ve done during those seven minutes.
Namely, get briefed on what’s going on. Which can be done via a secured communication channel that I assume is within 20 feet or so of him at all times (While it’s not an AF1 level “communications center” I find it hard to believe there’s no secure way of communicating with POTUS whenever he leaves the White House or AF1). Say the briefing doesn’t take seven minutes. Then he can spend the remainder thinking about what to do.
To quote Harry Truman, although I’m not at all sure it applies to Dubya, The Buck Stops Here. As soon as it’s realized the country is under attack, that’s the President’s priority one, even if it’s just trying to figure out what to do. Reading a book to a bunch of kids is somewhere down around priority 3,000.
Well, PAD, I kinda agree with your point of view, except:
“the extended, agonizing, deer-in-the-headlights look on Bush’s face during seven minutes of non-action at a Florida Kindergarten“
That wasn’t the look of a total moron. That was the same look alot of people had on 9/11 when they started to realize just what the hëll was happening. I know I had that look on my face for a few moments since I wasn’t near a tv when I first heard what was happening, and I live in NYC.
I think that was a little low of Moore, but the rest of the film I agreed with.
And more himself admitted that calling this a documentary would be the wrong word since it’s clearly an Op-Ed piece… but a well thought out one.
I haven’t seen it, and I don’t plan to. So, I can’t/won’t do any point-by-point “rebuttal” of Moore.
However, personal experience is not the be-all, end-all. I don’t need to have taken drugs to comment that I think they are an unhealthy, dangerous waste of time. There’s a wealth of data about it. The same is true of Michael Moore – there’s plenty of information about how he bends, stretches and manipulates facts to draw inaccurate conclusions. Even the mainstream press is having problems with the accuracy of Moore’s conclusions in this film.
I don’t have to see it to know that it has about as much worth as The Clinton Chronicles or other right-wing “documentaries” during the Clinton-Gore administration. I don’t have to see things like this to know they aren’t worth my time.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, as it hasn’t reached Holland yet. Nor am I likely to go to the cinema for it – some people wait for the tade, I usually wait for the DVD… and it doesn’t look like Mike needs heavy support in the cinemas on this one anymore. I’m a huge fan of Moore’s work and style – and anyone who hasn’t the basic tools necessary to separate fact from opinion deserves any brainwashing they get. I have no idea what a ‘fucumentary’ is, but Moore’s style is more that of the columnist, the pamphleteer.
Ah, anyway. I’m on his mailing list, so this is what he has to say, which will more than answer most of the comments raised here:
July 4th, 2004
Friends,
Where do I begin? This past week has knocked me for a loop. “Fahrenheit 9/11,” the #1 movie in the country, the largest grossing documentary ever. My head is spinning. Didn’t we just lose our distributor 8 weeks ago? Did Karl Rove really fail to stop this? Is Bush packing?
Each day this week I was given a new piece of information from the press that covers Hollywood, and I barely had time to recover from the last tidbit before the next one smacked me upside the head:
** More people saw “Fahrenheit 9/11” in one weekend than all the people who saw “Bowling for Columbine” in 9 months.
** “Fahrenheit 9/11” broke “Rocky III
As I commented a little while ago, Bush must really feel hot under the collar. How he responds to the film will be interesting
“If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you’re wrong.”
Couldn’t the same fairly be said about ANYONE who offers criticism of a creative endeavour without seeing (or say, reading) it?
Karen:
>He SHOULD have said,”Excuse me children, I’m afraid something has come up that as President I need to deal with” He then should have gotten the info, not left it to his underlings. This was a time for a leader to make decisions, not those under him. He wasted 7 minutes in which he could have been briefed so he could make informed decisions.
Karen, I agree with you 100%. This was the thought process that went through my head as well.
Luckily, word has it that Bush learned afew new words during that reading session.
Posted by: Peter David at July 5, 2004 09:55 PM
“Anyone who dismisses this film out of hand is wrong. Anyone who thinks of it simply as propoganda is wrong. Anyone who thinks this film should be skipped is wrong. Anyone who thinks Moore should be ignored is wrong. Anyone who thinks it’s just two hours of Moore ranting is wrong.
If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you’re wrong.
PAD”
I may be wrong, but I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. If I see a glowing red stove burner, and touch it, I will get burned. If I do the same thing a second time, I will get burned again. I should hope, by the third time, I won’t need to touch it again to know it will hurt.
Since I still bear the metaphorical scars from Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine, why would I shell out hard earned money to get burned in the theater again? I will catch it on cable(maybe) where I don’t have to pay for the pain. If anyone is to blame for my drawing from experience to prejudge the film, wouldn’t it be Moore’s history of playing fast and loose with the facts? What am I to do, take it at face value when he says, “Oh, this time it’s all true. Really, I mean it.”?
If I want to watch a fantasy, I already bought Hawk the Slayer on DVD, and that film has a closer relationship with reality than anything Moore has done.
PAD:
>>”Anyone who dismisses this film out of hand is wrong. Anyone who thinks of it simply as propoganda is wrong. Anyone who thinks this film should be skipped is wrong. Anyone who thinks Moore should be ignored is wrong. Anyone who thinks it’s just two hours of Moore ranting is wrong.
>>If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you’re wrong.
PAD”
>I may be wrong, but I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. If I see a glowing red stove burner, and touch it, I will get burned. If I do the same thing a second time, I will get burned again. I should hope, by the third time, I won’t need to touch it again to know it will hurt.
Since I still bear the metaphorical scars from Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine, why would I shell out hard earned money to get burned in the theater again? I will catch it on cable(maybe) where I don’t have to pay for the pain. If anyone is to blame for my drawing from experience to prejudge the film, wouldn’t it be Moore’s history of playing fast and loose with the facts? What am I to do, take it at face value when he says, “Oh, this time it’s all true. Really, I mean it.”?
If I want to watch a fantasy, I already bought Hawk the Slayer on DVD, and that film has a closer relationship with reality than anything Moore has done.
Blackjack, I certainly agree that you have the right and qualifications to decide whether or not you believe you’ll this film based on your previous experiences, but PAD was talking about those who make statements about the content of this specific film without having seen it.
Good Morning All,
I was quite impressed by the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11.” My fiance and I went to see it opening weekend here in Canada. After having seen “Bowling for Columbine,” we were quite interested in seeing Moore’s latest work. We were not disappointed. I will be the first to admit I did not support the US’s decision to go after Saddam, while my fiance purported the decision as “it’s about time they did away with Saddam, good for President Bush!” After seeing the movie, we left the theatre and he said, “How was I fooled?” My posistion was supported by the film, and I came away from it just thinking, “Boy, am I glad I am not an American.”
Whether some of his facts are skewed to support his own opinion or not, is irrelevant. He asks the questions no one else asked, questions that should have been asked. The film did not “brainwash;” rather, it presented facts in a way that supported Moore’s opinion, while at the same time, asked you to examine the facts and create your own opinion.
In the US, you have available to you a better democratic system than we have here in Canada. You actually get to cast a vote for who leads your country, while we vote for a local candidate for a party and whoever’s party wins the most ridings, their leader is our country’s leader. I just hope that you know how lucky you are in that system, and that when your election comes this fall, that every one of you votes.
See “Fahrenheit 9/11,” get the facts from other sources as well, and make an informed decision on who leads your country when you vote this fall. Not all of us in democratic countries have that choice.
Jocelyn
>
Maybe he wanted to find out how the book ended?
> Bill – If you still think that we went to war in Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline…well, oooookay. At least it will be an informed bone headed opinion.
How then do you respond to the very interesting points Moore makes about how long it took the U.S. to go after bin Laden (once they’d decided he was the man responsible for the attacks) and that they committed far, FAR fewer troops to it in Afghanistan than they did to going after Hussein who HADN’T attacked them? Which also may help explain why they got Hussein, but not bin Laden. Makes one wonder what their real priorities were, doesn’t it?
> Luigi – Is it really relevant to show the undignified moments of Bush and other administration officials having their hair and makeup prepped for the camera?
Sure. It helps bolster the realisation that the whole Washington thing is stage-managed from one end to the other.
>(And the ‘deer-in-the-headlights’)
A co-worker complains that it is unfair of Moore (and others to harp on that. Uh-huh. Since the atomic age came about, U.S. (and other) coastal cities are a maximum of ten minutes away from being vaporized in a sub-launched missile strike.
Bush spent seven of those minutes going “uh …”. That would have left him with a grand total of MAYBE three minutes in which to make decisions and have his people act on them, had it been a general attack. Not exactly what I’d consider reassuring in a leader.
Too, I’d seriously consider firing whomever was in charge of the security detail because those seven minutes were seven minutes which could have been spent getting the President on his way to a command and control center where he’d have had more direct sources of information, and greater control over the nation’s assets in dealing with what was clearly [after the second plane made it obvious it wasn’t an accident] a major emergency.
> And what exactly was the point of trying to get Congressmen to sign up their sons to enlist in the military.
An obvious one, I daresay. They were quite happy to send OTHER peoples’ kids off to be hurt or killed, but certainly wouldn’t consider taking such chances with THEIR offspring. Does the word “hypocrite” ring a bell here?
I am not an American. I am living in England and have no idea if/when this documentary will be shown here. I hope it will be because also non-Americans should see it.
This is why I am in the process of downloading it now. It is not something I do lightly but hopefully I can do my part later to support it should it come out on DVD.
A lot of what I read and heard about it reminds me of Charlie Chaplins movie “The Great Dictator”. With this DVD also came an extra one with a lot of background material and I respect Mr. Chaplin for his courage to challenge Hitler this way. Not that Bush is Hitler but I am glad that someone in the USA is doing the same now, not with a movie but with a documentary.
“If you go to see it and disagree, then you disagree. But if you refuse to see it and think you are then remotely qualified to comment on it, you’re wrong.”
Many said the same thing about Mel’s movie, but that didn’t stop the people commenting from thinking they were qualified.
I probably won’t see it for the same reason people didn’t see “The Passion”. Watching Moore’s religious ideas on film doesn’t interest me. ( Can’t tell me Politics is not the “new religion” of the modern era!)
ummm Not sure how I got to be Zwwk? But I kinda like it…
The worse part of all of this is that dispite the facts in Moore’s documentary, dispite how obviously uncaring the Republicans are towards the people, we will most likely see 4 more years of Bush.
I don’t say this lightly, because this is not about Bush or his policies or the Republicans. Its about how the Democrats just are not generating any real energy towards their own campaigns. Look at how much they have (or better put, “seemed to have”) allowed the republicans to get away with.
Clinton lied about sex and they spent millions going after him on it. Bush lies about – well, what doesn’t he lie about exactly – and the best response they got is to open a radio station, make Al Frankin the spear head (a guy I thought was boring on Saturday Night Live way back in the day, and he’s not very exciting these days either), and the Republicans are still pushing their agenda forward unheaded, unabated because they do generate the energy to keep their agenda rolling along.
Unless a major miracle happens, get ready for 4 more years of Bush – because I don’t think the Democrats have the chops to stop it. Their biggest mistake is refusing to understand “voter apathy.” But that’s a whole other topic.
Still waiting to see the movie before I make up my mind. That said, however, I’m metaphorically frothing at the mouth to see it. Just a matter of clearing the time with a baby sitter. *sigh* The joys of parenting.
A couple points regarding 9/11 morning:
1) When Andrew Card informed the pResident about the second plane, He immediately stepped away without waiting to see if he would receive any instructions.
2) Where was the Secret Service? As soon as it was believed that America was under attack, they should have been there to remove Bush, wether he wanted to go or not.
3) The Secret Service didn’t need time to clear a route to the airport. This is done in advance. When Reagan was shot, when Ford was shot at, the Secret Service IMMEDIATELY removed them from the scene & got them to the hospital & Air Force One, respectively.
JeffGillmer, please clarify:
You said “Bush was in a safe and secure location …”, yet when Bush finally did return to AF1, he went darting all across the country because “AF1 was a target”. How is it that on the ground in a single, well known & publicised location he’s safe, but in the air & moving around he’s in danger? If the school was a safe & secure location, and Air Force 1 was a target, then why move Bush from the safe area to a dangerous one?
Also, “Bush did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. In a time of immediate crisis like that, he doesn’t make decisions. He does what he’s told to do”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the orders supposed to come FROM the president, and not TO him? (Except in matters of the Presidents personal safety, in which the Secret Service can overrule the President) Or is this an admission that Bush is a puppet of Cheney, Rove, et al?
Just a few issues… I have not seen the movie yet.
Moore hired the head of the Fact Checking team from The New Yorker to go through the movie scene by scene to make sure everything was defensible. I said The New Yorker Not the New York Times.
As said above, this is an Op-Ed, as Moore himself said, more than documentary.
If you go to a documentary or movie searching for Truth or Not Truth, you will find either. If you go,listen and watch, find out what are Facts and Not Facts afterward, then make up your mind of what is Truth or Not Truth, you probably will have a more pleasent time.
Moore is the king of hyperbole. I think he’s freaking hilarious. But even I, who agree with Moore more often than not, would not go see something of his and take it on blind faith.
Travis Clark
P.S.
KERRY CHOSE EDWARDS!!! Whoo hoo!!! Finally, a good decision by a Democrat.
sheesh… I almost sound like yoda.
And yes, it’s pleasant, instead of pleasent. And really, what I should have said is this:
“If you go,listen and watch, find out what are Facts and Not Facts afterward, then make up your mind of what is Truth or Not Truth, you probably will learn something, and can put forth a valid argument.”
Travis
KERRY CHOSE EDWARDS!!! KERRY CHOSE EDWARDS!!! KERRY CHOSE EDWARDS!!! KERRY CHOSE EDWARDS!!!
I know, I’m giddy.