Slashdot Mirror

If you're referring to 2000 Fox wasn't the first to call it. THat's another F911 fabrication.

Care to backup your statement? Moore does provide some information on his assertion.

So, read people's second hand versions instead of viewing the real thing? Which took longer?

Anyway, while shielding yourself and working hard at not seeing it seems very silly, you could just peruse his very long list of references for every remark in his movie. Kinda makes those "it's all lies!" people seem mentally challenged, but that's just me.

You see, some of us are smart enough to apply critical thinking to all info ingested, so watching FF 9/11 was very simply an entertaining way of gaining insight into a few things that I was merely mildly aware of, and it was well worth the two hours. 90% of the information contained within was not new to the informed (which would be very few Americans), but the sheer genius of the mode of communication (he won Cannes because it was an extremely well made movie) was worth the watch. I will also watch Rush's anti-Kerry movie for the same reason. I like learning things... first hand. I trust my own critical thinking more than anyone else's (most don't apply critical thinking anyway), and that's the way it should be.

And if you don't think learning about the agenda of the most powerful man on the planet is "useful", then jeebus, you have some serious value list problems.

Please don't "not vote" just because your state is already "won". This is what the Republicans want. Read this by Michael Moore . Your state may be marginal. Also, it's important that Kerry be given a clear mandate. (Unless you're going to vote for Bush, then by all means stay home.)

http://indymedia.us/en/2004/11/1811.shtml
http://www.michaelmoore.com/electionwatch/index.ph p

Go to Micheal Moore .com and see why people who can read and write don't think Bush is qualified to lead a dog on a leash.

Come on people. Both sides have propaganda - we all know the "swift boats" crap is as one sided as "F9/11".

And what, exactly, made Jimmy Carter such a terrible president?

Paranoia? About what? Adulterated candy? People still believe this crap? Hoaxes for the most part, and when true- often it's family members.

But don't take my word for it.

The link on Moore's website is for the book "Culure of Fear- Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things" by Barry Glassner. Highly recommended, and it attacks both the right and left politicians, and the right and left media, for ignoring the real issues facing our country, and whipping up hysteria.

Remember slashdot kids, if it's on TV on in your local movie theater, it's got to be true, right? Honestly, I think most people here just tow the slashdot-party line, if you take my meaning. It's just popular to bash Fox News, because, heaven forbid, they might have intelligently voiced conservative viewpoints along with the intelligently voiced liberal viewpoints IN THE SAME SHOW!

That's right. Sinclair is just doing this to balance all the stations that are broadcasting Fahrenheit 9/11 and Going Upriver.

Here's a list of those stations:
<ul></ul>

Since when? I recall the wingnuts getting very upset precisely because he did and they weren't happy with the answers. Here's an example.

You right-wing assholes should be in prison for your vile distortions

Yeah, because there sure isn't anyone who would distort truth by taking things out of context for the left-leaning people of the United States, is there?

(Don't flame me as a republican OR a democrat. I'm standing square in the most sought after crowd - the undecided moderates.)

THIS again!

How many more times is this link going to come up? Moore's already responded with a line-by-line backup of everything in the movie:

Here.

This is the third time I've posted this link on Slashdot. Oy.

This page is referred to, now, on the fifty-nine deceits page, and prefaced with words from Boston University Law Professor Randy Barnett, talking about how so much care was taken with Fahrenheit 9/11 to say only true things:

Instead, notice the film's meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) "true" or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression. In this way, Kopel's care in describing Moore's "deceits" is much more interesting than other critiques I have read, including that of Christopher Hitchens. Kopel's lawyerly description of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive)--a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false--and this leads in turn to another thought.

When I read this, what do I think? I think this sounds exactly like what someone would say were they to hear facts that cannot be disputed, that lead up to a conclusion that they cannot correlate with what they believe in strongly.

If you believe one thing, and you come across information that blatantly contradicts it, you have three choices: pretend you haven't heard it (the "la-la-la" method), be convinced by it (these days? unlikely), or claim that it's supremely, purposely deceitful (the "Satan" approach).

Despite everything that's been said about Michael Moore, I don't think he's ever been purposely deceitful. He believes what he's saying. I don't think the Great Deceiver label sticks to him, and thus the movie stands with me. I think most people who aren't already indoctrinated conservatives or haven't thrown up their hands politically have that view of him.

That's what makes Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore so dangerous to the powers-that-be: in such a surpremely close election, they're scared that Moore could actually influence the election. Who fretted about that fat man being unfair to GM in Roger & Me?

While now, we have an entire cable news channel that overtly and obviously spins right on every damn thing they air. If we didn't have a Michael Moore out there countering (inefficently, if you ask me) that kind of thing, I'd be wondering very hard about why there wasn't one.

Fat turd.

A touch of reality

Some current and former members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, privately, have viewed Kerry as a ruthlessly ambitious pol light on personal conviction ? a bit of a phony, in other words.
Kerry has always been an elusive figure, a complex man who rarely opens up to anyone outside a small circle of close advisers, family and friends.
One senior adviser once told me he loved working for Kerry because he would do anything ? whatever it took ? to win.

Too much is at stake to play by Dukakis' rules and lose again. That is the conclusion Democrats have reached. So watch out. Millions of dollars will be on the table. And there are plenty of choices for what to spend it on.

Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up?

After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment.

What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president?

Or how about Dead Texans for Truth, highlighting those who served in Vietnam instead of the privileged draft-dodging president, and ended up as names on the wall instead of members of the Air National Guard.

Or maybe it will be Texas National Guardsmen for Truth, who can explain exactly what George W. Bush was doing while John Kerry was putting his life on the line. Perhaps with money on the table, or investigators on their trail, we will learn just what kind of wild and crazy things the president was doing while Kerry was saving a man's life, facing enemy fire and serving his country.

But the vitriol also reflects the fact that many of the people at that convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America. They want a controlled, monolithic society; they fear and loathe our nation's freedom, diversity and complexity.

I'm puzzled why you think that qualifies as a "lie". The point of that scene was to demonstrate that you can get a free rifle or whatever it was, simply by opening a bank account. It hardly matters whether you have to wait 5 minutes, a day or a week before you actually get a gun. The relevant fact is that the a firearm is being used for promotional purposes and that's really bizarre.

As to whether it was staged, well that's just one person's word against another, although as far as I can tell, no one who would actually be in a position to know has actually made this allegation. None-the-less Moore responds to this and other criticisms here.

Well sir, you got rated a troll for speaking what is quite possibly the truth. A huge number of people are in a collective state of denial and cannot even stand numbers for fear of for fear of disturbing their collective psychosis.

Unless somethings changed more recently, the post above incorrectly says that ads for the movie are no longer being aired because it violates laws about commercials featuring candidates.

A conservative group did petition the Federal Election Commission to bar commercials about the film, but according to a Reuters news story (archived on michaelmooore.com) the US agency, "found no evidence that the movie's ads had broken the law or that distributors of the film intended any violations in the future."

more info: http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=127

Apparently you've never visited the War Room, where he responds to these.

Read the sources.
This time he gives sources, and I suggest you actually look into them. In the past, he has included in his references sources that actually refute his claims.
I'm unsure of how prevalent that is in this instance, but some people are complaining allready.
His attempt to back up Bowling for Columbine, Wacko Attacko's, did not have much substance, for example.

If you really take an interest, you can read The Dave Kopel article and compare it with what Moore says.

Lying without uttering a false sentence?
What I'd like to have somebody do, preferably one from each "side", is go through F911 and find out wether Moore actually makes any false statement. No doubt he's lying with film and doing some Soviet Russia document revision, but saying something like "In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.", that can't be a direct lie because the paper actually wrote that. Wether he actually WAS on vacation 42% of the time makes no difference to a rigid parsing of that statement.

And Farenhype911 just looks like talking heads to me. The Mike Wilson movie looks funnier.

And click (Flash)

BTW: Isn't it rather US-centric to have the star sprangeled banner as a logo for the politics section? (Yes, I know you're in the U.S.)

Read the sources.
This time he gives sources, and I suggest you actually look into them. In the past, he has included in his references sources that actually refute his claims.
I'm unsure of how prevalent that is in this instance, but some people are complaining allready.
His attempt to back up Bowling for Columbine, Wacko Attacko's, did not have much substance, for example.

If you really take an interest, you can read The Dave Kopel article and compare it with what Moore says.

Lying without uttering a false sentence?
What I'd like to have somebody do, preferably one from each "side", is go through F911 and find out wether Moore actually makes any false statement. No doubt he's lying with film and doing some Soviet Russia document revision, but saying something like "In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.", that can't be a direct lie because the paper actually wrote that. Wether he actually WAS on vacation 42% of the time makes no difference to a rigid parsing of that statement.

And Farenhype911 just looks like talking heads to me. The Mike Wilson movie looks funnier.

And click (Flash)

BTW: Isn't it rather US-centric to have the star sprangeled banner as a logo for the politics section? (Yes, I know you're in the U.S.)

Why would this invalidate his Best Documentary status?

Because in order to qualify for Best Documentary, the film must not have been shown on television prior to the award.

Here's the link and the relevant paragraph:

"The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction)." -- Michael Moore

essay on michaelmoore.com

You've got questions? He's got answers.

"In this case, the U.S. (a country of 200+ million people currently exerting its military dominance in 2 other countries) asked Australia (a country of 20 million people and comparably little world impact) to extradite him."

From http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=154 :

130 Approximate Number of countries (out of a total of 191 recognised by the United Nations) with a US military presence.

This thread made Michael Moore's Must Read page for Wednesday August 25.

Hey, that was a good post. Thanks for taking the time out.

Yes I criticize a lot - I know. But the 'head of the class' should be the head because he is the wisest, not because he is the biggest. The bully mentality alienates your friends and enrage your enemies. This is already happening big time.

I haven't heard about the election-fraud accusations in Germany, but we've had them in my country (Denmark). There is no doubt nor dispute about who got the votes in neither Germany nor my country though and you cannot imagine a society that has no corrupted individuals. You are right, Italy seems a farce under Berlosconi, and I really do NOT wanna turn this into a 'XX is better than YY' type thing, EU is far from any paradise, and we've certainly got our shit to work out.

However since you do the comparison, neither Germany nor Italy engages in preemptive warfare (thnx in big part to the US), but the US does. At least that is the impression you are left with if you first read PNAC and then consider who the prominent PNAC members are (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz...).

Oh, I don't believe for one second that these guys are stupid. Bonkers they may be - but stupid they're not. They know very well what they're doing. I am not sure they quite realise what their actions might entail (nor do I for that matter), but I am also not sure that they care too much.

No - what I meant when I said bonkers was you guys - the ones who lives in US, the real US. The ones whose votes will determine life and death matters all over the world. The ones whose votes will shape the international climate, the ones who won't vote because they 'it does not matter, nothing can be done anyways, I am not willing to waste my time trying'. That really seems odd.

US is so big, and you're probably right, we don't have diversity in the face the way you do. I am posting this from rather comfortable little DK (best place in the world, then our right wing took over), I am not in Romania or Albania or on the Balkans, I am not even in Italy. It's easy for me to sit here and be high-strung. That however, does not alter the fact that you guys really need to DO something. I just hope that this one time your apathy will be left at home when you go voting and that your election will end with the only reasonable outcome.

US is NOT the moral leader of the world, it's just the biggest military force in existence. A lot of US folks may not realise that, but that's how everybody else sees it. You can change that...

Here's a video for you

I am sorry if I come off staunch, I am just soo fucking amazed by the beast that is the US. The whole Swift-boat-liars-for-whatever affair, FOX news, Bush in general, Fahrenheit 9/11 etc...

Thnx for your post, it was a good read and I'd mod u up if I could.

...by Kurt Vonnegut I Love You, Madame Librarian

yeah, they should rather show us some serious quick numbers and links to studies!

"FAHRENHEIT 9/11: The security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001, said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes."

The problem here is that he misquotes the movie and the assertion in the movie. In the actual quote from the movie, Moore says: "Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes." Emphasis mine.

Moores leaves out the important part of that sentence because He forgot the important first part of that sentence when he put it on his site. That is probably because, on the same page on his site (up a few "facts"), he says

"NOTE: It should be emphasized that at the time Bush was notified of the first plane attack, he (unlike the rest of America) was already aware that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes, per the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)."

So in the movie he says that the report was there and he didn't read it, on his site he says the report was there and that he had read it. He is easily able to hide the contradiction on his site by editing the quote to leave out the real implication of his statement in the movie. He can't say both, at least not on the same page.

Of course, he would combat this by saying "no, it doesn't say that he read it, it says that he was aware of it." But like I said, I don't see any meaningful difference between trying to trick me and lying to me.

Hitchens states:
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.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Notes + Sources:
FAHRENHEIT 9/11 : Bushs good friend James Bath was hired by the bin Laden family to manage their money in Texas and invest in businesses. And James Bath himself, in turn, invested in George W. Bush.

• See Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, signed by Salem M. Binladen, July 8, 1976 (original document), Attachment C (I, Salem M. Binladen, do hereby vest unto James Reynolds Bath, 2330 Bellefontaine, Houston, Texas, full and absolute authority to act on my behalf in all matters relating to the business and operation of Binladen-Houston offices in Houston, Texas. Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, July 8, 1976.

• See 1981 Schedule 4 spreadsheet showing $50,000 investment by James Bath in George W. Bushs Arbusto Exploration, Attachment D (original document).

• Baths business relationship with Salem bin Laden, and other wealthy Saudi businessmen, has been well documented. See, e.g., Mike Ward, Bin Laden Relatives Have Ties to Texas, Austin American-Statesman, November 9, 2001; Jerry Urban, Feds Investigate Entrepreneur Allegedly Tied to Saudis, Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1992; Thomas Petzinger Jr., et al., Family Ties: How Oil Firm Linked to a Son of Bush Won Bahrain Drilling Pact, The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1991.

• [E]arly 1980s tax records reviewed by TIME show that Bath invested $50,000 in Bush's energy ventures and remained a stockholder until Bush sold his company to Harken in 1986. Jonathan Beaty, A Mysterious Mover of Money and Planes, Time Magazine, October 28, 1991.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 : Bush ran Arbusto nearly into the ground, as he did every other company he was involved in until finally one of his companies was bought by Harken Energy and they gave him a seat on their board.

• Bush's name was to help rescue him, just as it had attracted investors and helped revive his flagging fortunes throughout his years in the dusty plains city of Midland. A big Dallas-based firm, Harken Oil and Gas, was looking to buy up troubled oil companies. After finding Spectrum, Harken's executives saw a bonus in their target's CEO, despite his spotty track record. By the end of September 1986, the deal was done. Harken assumed $ 3.1 million in debts and swapped $ 2.2 million of its stock for a company that was hemorrhaging money, though it had oil and gas reserves projected to produce $ 4 million in future net revenue. Harken, a firm that liked to attach itself to stars, had also acquired Bush, whom it used not as an operating manager but as a high-profile board member. It was one of the biggest breaks of Bush's life. Still, the Harken deal completed a disappointing reprise of what was becoming a familiar pattern. As an oilman, Bush always worked hard, winning a reputation as a straight-shooter and a good boss who was witty, warm and immensely likable. Even the investors who lost money in his ventures remained admirers, and some of them are now raising money for his presidential campaign. But the story of Bush's career in oil, which began following his graduation from Harvard Business School in the su

Hitchens states:
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.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Notes + Sources:
FAHRENHEIT 9/11 : Bushs good friend James Bath was hired by the bin Laden family to manage their money in Texas and invest in businesses. And James Bath himself, in turn, invested in George W. Bush.

• See Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, signed by Salem M. Binladen, July 8, 1976 (original document), Attachment C (I, Salem M. Binladen, do hereby vest unto James Reynolds Bath, 2330 Bellefontaine, Houston, Texas, full and absolute authority to act on my behalf in all matters relating to the business and operation of Binladen-Houston offices in Houston, Texas. Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, July 8, 1976.

• See 1981 Schedule 4 spreadsheet showing $50,000 investment by James Bath in George W. Bushs Arbusto Exploration, Attachment D (original document).

• Baths business relationship with Salem bin Laden, and other wealthy Saudi businessmen, has been well documented. See, e.g., Mike Ward, Bin Laden Relatives Have Ties to Texas, Austin American-Statesman, November 9, 2001; Jerry Urban, Feds Investigate Entrepreneur Allegedly Tied to Saudis, Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1992; Thomas Petzinger Jr., et al., Family Ties: How Oil Firm Linked to a Son of Bush Won Bahrain Drilling Pact, The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1991.

• [E]arly 1980s tax records reviewed by TIME show that Bath invested $50,000 in Bush's energy ventures and remained a stockholder until Bush sold his company to Harken in 1986. Jonathan Beaty, A Mysterious Mover of Money and Planes, Time Magazine, October 28, 1991.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 : Bush ran Arbusto nearly into the ground, as he did every other company he was involved in until finally one of his companies was bought by Harken Energy and they gave him a seat on their board.

• Bush's name was to help rescue him, just as it had attracted investors and helped revive his flagging fortunes throughout his years in the dusty plains city of Midland. A big Dallas-based firm, Harken Oil and Gas, was looking to buy up troubled oil companies. After finding Spectrum, Harken's executives saw a bonus in their target's CEO, despite his spotty track record. By the end of September 1986, the deal was done. Harken assumed $ 3.1 million in debts and swapped $ 2.2 million of its stock for a company that was hemorrhaging money, though it had oil and gas reserves projected to produce $ 4 million in future net revenue. Harken, a firm that liked to attach itself to stars, had also acquired Bush, whom it used not as an operating manager but as a high-profile board member. It was one of the biggest breaks of Bush's life. Still, the Harken deal completed a disappointing reprise of what was becoming a familiar pattern. As an oilman, Bush always worked hard, winning a reputation as a straight-shooter and a good boss who was witty, warm and immensely likable. Even the investors who lost money in his ventures remained admirers, and some of them are now raising money for his presidential campaign. But the story of Bush's career in oil, which began following his graduation from Harvard Business School in the su

Hitchens states:
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.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Notes + Sources:
FAHRENHEIT 9/11 : Bushs good friend James Bath was hired by the bin Laden family to manage their money in Texas and invest in businesses. And James Bath himself, in turn, invested in George W. Bush.

• See Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, signed by Salem M. Binladen, July 8, 1976 (original document), Attachment C (I, Salem M. Binladen, do hereby vest unto James Reynolds Bath, 2330 Bellefontaine, Houston, Texas, full and absolute authority to act on my behalf in all matters relating to the business and operation of Binladen-Houston offices in Houston, Texas. Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, July 8, 1976.

• See 1981 Schedule 4 spreadsheet showing $50,000 investment by James Bath in George W. Bushs Arbusto Exploration, Attachment D (original document).

• Baths business relationship with Salem bin Laden, and other wealthy Saudi businessmen, has been well documented. See, e.g., Mike Ward, Bin Laden Relatives Have Ties to Texas, Austin American-Statesman, November 9, 2001; Jerry Urban, Feds Investigate Entrepreneur Allegedly Tied to Saudis, Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1992; Thomas Petzinger Jr., et al., Family Ties: How Oil Firm Linked to a Son of Bush Won Bahrain Drilling Pact, The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 1991.

• [E]arly 1980s tax records reviewed by TIME show that Bath invested $50,000 in Bush's energy ventures and remained a stockholder until Bush sold his company to Harken in 1986. Jonathan Beaty, A Mysterious Mover of Money and Planes, Time Magazine, October 28, 1991.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 : Bush ran Arbusto nearly into the ground, as he did every other company he was involved in until finally one of his companies was bought by Harken Energy and they gave him a seat on their board.

• Bush's name was to help rescue him, just as it had attracted investors and helped revive his flagging fortunes throughout his years in the dusty plains city of Midland. A big Dallas-based firm, Harken Oil and Gas, was looking to buy up troubled oil companies. After finding Spectrum, Harken's executives saw a bonus in their target's CEO, despite his spotty track record. By the end of September 1986, the deal was done. Harken assumed $ 3.1 million in debts and swapped $ 2.2 million of its stock for a company that was hemorrhaging money, though it had oil and gas reserves projected to produce $ 4 million in future net revenue. Harken, a firm that liked to attach itself to stars, had also acquired Bush, whom it used not as an operating manager but as a high-profile board member. It was one of the biggest breaks of Bush's life. Still, the Harken deal completed a disappointing reprise of what was becoming a familiar pattern. As an oilman, Bush always worked hard, winning a reputation as a straight-shooter and a good boss who was witty, warm and immensely likable. Even the investors who lost money in his ventures remained admirers, and some of them are now raising money for his presidential campaign. But the story of Bush's career in oil, which began following his graduation from Harvard Business School in the su

Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11

I'm starting to get really disturbed by the politics going on right now.

There's nothing wrong with questioning your government. When you start blindly protesting every single action of the government, I think it's time to take a step back and get a little perspective on things.

I'm starting to think twice about going to HOPE next month. Last time I went (2002) it was *incredibly* political. Jello Biafra gave a talk, and said a bunch of things about the "Bush conspiracy"--stuff that was easily debunked as bullshit on snopes.com--but everyone there just ate it up like it was hard fact. Random people would yell out "Bush sucks!" and everyone would laugh like it was the funniest shit in the world.

I've never seen a better example of herd mentality in my life. This is free thinking?

This was before the war, and before I gave a shit one way or the other about Bush and his policies, and I was probably more than likely to say "fuck Bush" based on what I knew about him at the time... and I still remember looking around and thinking these were a bunch of anarchist-wannabe children (many of whom were well past childhood.)

This was supposed to be a gathering of free-thinking people... individuals. Instead, it was a bunch of scene whores trying to act cool in front of "all the other hackers"... spouting ill-informed mass-media opinions without any actual information to back it up. And then they have the nerve to talk about how fucked up the media is. Hah. I'd feel different if I had seen anything but eagerly nodding heads slack-jawed idiots drinking up the bullshit like it was gospel.

I donno, I'd like to go to HOPE, it'd be fun in some ways... but I just cringe every time I think of the immature shit that Emannuel used to spout on his radio show, and I can only imagine how much more political HOPE will be with the current assault on Bush. Something tells me I won't really enjoy myself too much there.

I bet money that they show Fahrenheit 911 in the screening room and spend endless hours spouting mindless propaganda. And no, I'm not trolling. I'm not even a republican. I just hate people who don't think things through for themselves.

The closest thing to criticism seems to be a distate for alleged innuendo created by the proximity of facts given, or that the film wasn't 10 hours long, therefore all facts weren't given. Even the author's admit that just the fact the ideas were presented raises important questions that can't be ignored. If Moore had to complete every thought for the audience, then he would simply be accused of either being pedantic, or he could rightfully be called a liar. The facts given are sometimes circumstantial without admittance of guilt from parties involved. In that type of situation, the filmmaker couldn't truthfully tell you that the facts lead to an undeniable result, only a plausible one. He can only honestly say, "Here's the circumstantial evidence without admittance to guilt. And, here's another. And, another. What do you make of it? Personally, I think something funny is going on." And, that's what Moore did. A simple amazing point that I don't see mentioned anywhere, is that this supposedly slanderous documentary doesn't appear to have generated any law suits as of this writing. Could the facts speak for themselves? Even the lawsuit-slap-happy Faux News Channel is unusually reserved in the courtroom department.

The fact the article was written, however misleading the title, is a good sign Michael Moore has done his job right. People need to be talking and debating, rather than simply swallowing the slop thrown over the White House's new security fences, or the drivel usually trickling out of corporate owned TV newsrooms.

= 9J =

It would be different if the points that they dispute in the movie on their website were more relevant and not just trivial like 'Moore implies thisandthat but in reality it was slightly different', for instance:

The implication is that Bath invested the bin Laden family's money in Bush's failed energy company, Arbusto. He doesn't mention that Bath has said that he had invested his own money, not the bin Ladens', in Bush's company.

It is interesting to compare: The critics [davekopel.com] with the The responses [michaelmoore.com].

I, for one, am very disappointed in the critic's points. Some of their points are in direct conflict with other points. For instance, they say special permission for the flights of the Saudis was not required because the flights were after Sept. 13th:

But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore's failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then.

Yet in the next section they say that special permission WAS given by the white house, albiet signed by Richard Clarke, not Bush.

Again, Moore is misleading. His film includes a brief shot of a Sept. 4, 2003, New York Times article headlined "White House Approved Departures of Saudis after Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says." The camera pans over the article far too quickly for any ordinary viewer to spot and read the words in which Clarke states that he approved the flights.

It all sounds so child-like: "He implies that the white house gave permission, but they didn't have to! And besides, the permission that the white house gave was signed by Clarke, not Bush, so there.."

I have come to the conclusion that most people are stupid, it doesn't matter what side of the political fence that they are on.
--jeff++

Michael Moore's career as a rabble-rousing populist has been marked by a frequent pattern of dissembling and factual inaccuracy. He distorted the chronology of his first movie, "Roger & Me"; repeatedly peddled the myth that the Bush administration gave $43 million to the Taliban; published two books, Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country? , that were riddled with factual errors and distortions; and won an Academy Award for "Bowling for Columbine," a documentary based on a confused and often contradictory argument that features altered footage of a Bush-Quayle campaign ad, a misleading presentation of a speech by National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston, and other factual distortions.

With his new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which won the prestigious Palme D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival and was #1 at the US box office last week, Moore has surged to new prominence -- and come under increasing scrutiny. His staff has made much of elaborate fact-checking that was reportedly conducted on the film. And fortunately, it appears to be free of the silly and obvious errors that have plagued Moore's past work, such as the claim in Stupid White Men that the Pentagon planned to spend $250 billion on the Joint Strike Fighter in 2001, a sum that represented over 80 percent of the total defense budget request for the year.

However, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is filled with a series of deceptive half-truths and carefully phrased insinuations that Moore does not adequately back up. As Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum and others have noted, the irony is that these are the same tactics frequently used by the target of the film, George W. Bush. Moore and his chief antagonist have more in common than viewers might think.

The 2000 Florida recount

Reviewing the 2000 election during the opening of the film, Moore uses a quote from CNN legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin to make a deeply misleading suggestion about the results of the media recounts conducted in Florida:

Moore: And even if numerous independent investigations prove that Gore got the most votes --

Toobin: If there was a statewide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election.

Moore: -- it won't matter just as long as all your daddy's friends on the Supreme Court vote the right way.

But the recount conducted by a consortium of media organizations found something quite different, as Newsday recently pointed out. If the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had gone ahead, the consortium found that Bush would have won the election under two different scenarios: counting only "undervotes," or taking into account the reported intentions of some county electoral officials to include "overvotes" as well. During the CNN appearance from which Moore

TMBG is a band that has worked their asses off for years and years. While not "commercially viable" according to what corporate overlords dictate, they've managed to garner a cult following and become a success. I remember being in Manhattan more than a decade ago and I couldn't walk a few blocks anywhere in the city without seeing their flyers all over the place. If any group deserves success and attention, it's these guys.

I heard them on Air America Radio the other day and they were great... I especially loved the bit where they "accidently" gave out the 1-800-AFAMILY telephone number of the right wing religious nutjob organization that apparently sent out a missive to people with Michael Moore's personal contact information and suggested he be harassed for releasing the "un-american" movie Fahrenheit 911.

Ouch. Learning that China censors SMS messages is like seeing . You know something is wrong, but until you learn the details it seems less of an outrage.

reeddavid.com

... you might want to learn a thing or two on the filmmaker.

You can also read the response to some of the critic in Michael Moore responds to the wacko attackos.

WHAT THE FILM SAYS:

Sen. Byron Dorgan: We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.
Narration: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.
Additionally, in an interview with author Craig Unger, the film makes reference to the fact that these individuals were briefly interviewed before they were allowed to leave.

WHY WE SAY IT:
1. THE FLIGHTS - WHO GOT OUT WHEN
The facts stated in Fahrenheit 9/11 are well documented and are based entirely on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12
Unfortunately, some news organizations have misinterpreted what the film says. Some have said Fahrenheit 9/11 alleges that these flights out of the country took place when commercial airplanes were still grounded. The film does not say this. The film states clearly that these flights left after September 13 (the day the FAA began to slowly lift the ban on air traffic).

2. WHO APPROVED THESE FLIGHTS AND WHY
We really do not know why it was so necessary for the White House to allow the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and "the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged," according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.
We do know who asked for help in getting Saudis out of the country - the Saudi government. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12 The film also includes a television interview with Saudi Prince Bandar, confirming this as well.
Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has testified that he approved these flights, stating that "it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.

3. DID THESE INDIVIDUALS GET SPECIAL TREATMENT BY LAW ENFOCEMENT?
Yes, according to Jack Cloonan, a former senior agent on the joint FBI-CIA Al-Qaeda task force, who is interviewed in Fahrenheit 9/11. Cloonan raises questions about the type of investigation to which these individuals were subjected, finding it highly unusual that in light of the seriousness of the attack on 9/11, bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the country and escape without anyone getting their statements on record in any kind of formal proceeding, and with little more than a brief interview.
Most Saudis who left were not interviewed at all by the FBI. In fact, of the 142 Saudis on these flights, only 30 were interviewed. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12
The film puts this in perspective. Imagine President Clinton f

You've got your facts wrong. And since you didn't see the film, I guess that's OK. Rep. Mark Kennedy of Minnesota is the guy you're speaking of. And he did not 'decline' he in fact said... well, here's the transcript. (EMPHASIS MINE)

Transcript of Interview with Rep. Mark Kennedy.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY How are you doing?

MM: I'm trying to get members of congress to get their kids to enlist in the army and go over to Iraq. Is there any way you could help me with that?

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How would I help you?

MM: Pass it out to other members of congress.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

MM: Because there is only one member who has a kid over there in Iraq. This is Corporal Henderson, he is helping me out here.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How are you, good to see you.

MM: There it is, it's just a basic recruitment thing. Encourage especially those who were in favor of the war to send their kids. I appreciate it.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: Okay, bye.

The thing is, Congressman Kennedy is the one that started to twist what happened, see? Only his image was used in the film, nothing else. No words were put in his mouth and the encounter, as evidenced in the above transcript, is completely cordial. So what exactly does he have to get his panties into a wad about? What, that he did in fact help recruit fellow congresspeople's children to fight in the war as he promised and yet Moore is saying he didn't? That's laughable (that one would assume he would actually go and recruit anyone). Moore's wearing his satirist cap here and simply presenting the absurdity of walking up to people in office and requesting something so surreal. And yet his point is made because we should *all* ask ourselves if Congress might not have been so quick to give Bush what he wanted if more of their own children were in the armed forces. Recall that Joe Biden was seething at John Ashcroft a few weeks ago when he made it plain that the reason we abide by the Geneva Convention and don't torture is because we don't want our own (in this case, Biden's own son) children in the armed forces to be tortured.

June 23rd, 2004 Michael Isikoff and Newsweek Magazine Deceive the Public About Fahrenheit 9/11 This link off the main Michael Moore wesite gives me a 404 Error. Target URL is: isikoff.php. Could anyone scrounge up some content from this web location? I'm curious to see what was said on that webpage, and why it might be taken down at the moment. -Silas

June 23rd, 2004 Michael Isikoff and Newsweek Magazine Deceive the Public About Fahrenheit 9/11 This link off the main Michael Moore wesite gives me a 404 Error. Target URL is: isikoff.php. Could anyone scrounge up some content from this web location? I'm curious to see what was said on that webpage, and why it might be taken down at the moment. -Silas

Moore was interviewed on Al Franken's The O'Franken Factor this past Friday and said that he refuses to be interviewed on tape and will only be interviewed live as he has seen folks edit his words to fit their agenda. If he gets into a debate/heated-exchange, he wants to make sure everything he says is heard/seen by the audience. I'm not positive, but I think Fox News may have been in the same sentence. Someone with a better recollection of that interview should chime in.

Regardless, I'm sure cynical folks out there will see his statement as the pot calling the kettle black but do yourself a favor and check out the lies folks (from the media even! Oh, the surprise! I mean, isn't American media called the 'Liberal Media'?) have already been spreading about the movie. Moore has been insistent in correcting any falsehoods thrown at the movie. And he does so with reliable sources to back him up.

This is my second post in this thread and I'm sure by now I'll be seen as a Moore sympathiser. The fact is, while I like his work I do consider him mainly a satirist and a documentarian that's looking to present his case with as much factual evidence as possible. As is evident from the doc's weekend box office receipts, he's apparently done a good job of giving the American public what they want right now.

I only hope those same movie attendees will remember to vote in November.

"Moore does and when he does not supply sources, dates for footage, where he got translations for speech in other languages, and the like,"
you might want to check out his website he cites sources for all the so-called inaccurate facts and what not.
That being said I fully support any factual criticism, but please cite sources rather then repeat what has already been debunked on his site by references to original documents. I have bothered to fallow up on many of the criticisms leveled against him, and often they are very hallow. People seem to be against the idea of someone making an argument by choosing pieces of information that they feel are more relevant then others.
Some critiques are well written and worth reading, it is a shame that some people don't hold the white house government and the corporate media to the same standards as Moore.

From Moore's website:

I'd go on O'Reilly but, like a coward, he walked out on a screening we invited him to (with Al Franken just a few rows away!). I personally caught him sneaking out. Embarrassed, he tried to change the subject. He said, "When are you coming on my show?" and I said, "Turn around and watch the rest of the movie and I will come on your show." He walked out. Fair and balanced.

Michael Moore is not Canadian. He was born in Flint, Michigan, USA in 1954. He was elected to political office in Michigan at age 18 and went on to attend the University of Michigan. He notes that he is, was and always has been an American.

...everyone should know about Michael Moore's record for twisting facts.

But also, everyone should be aware of the page in which Moore responds to the people who claim he twisted facts:

Moore's considerably-less-famous response page.

He fakes his films - such as cutting together 2 week apart film to make it look as if you could walk into a bank and walk out with a gun, when, in fact, he arranged to have the gun delievered there, after his 2 week waiting period.

And more than anything, his 'need to be heard'. That smacks of a fat, lonely bastard, with a need to be the center of attention, and I hate that kind of person. He needs to go back to writing a weblog like a normal, attention-starved 14yr old girl.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY How are you doing?
MM: I'm trying to get members of congress to get their kids to enlist in the army and go over to Iraq. Is there any way you could help me with that?
CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How would I help you?
MM: Pass it out to other members of congress.
CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war.
CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
MM: Because there is only one member who has a kid over there in Iraq. This is Corporal Henderson, he is helping me out here.
CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How are you, good to see you.
MM: There it is, it's just a basic recruitment thing. Encourage especially those who were in favor of the war to send their kids. I appreciate it.
CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: Okay, bye.