Slashdot Mirror
Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion
xerid writes "I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and the theatre was packed & sold out for each showing. Today, I read on Michael Moore.com about the movie breaking records. However, what I haven't seen was coverage on Slashdot, about the movie's opening day." I saw the film on friday and was really impressed. But while it speaks much truth, and has many funny parts as well as truly heartbreaking ones, I don't know how many votes it will sway. But since there is very little other news so far today, why not talk amongst yourselves!
I was introduced to this absolutely astonishing documentary called "The truths and lies about September 11th". It's basically a video recording of a seminar held in the University of Portland by this guy called Mike Ruppert. I was sceptical to begin with, since i was expecting this to be just another conspiracy theory but i was proven wrong. He runs a website http://www.copvcia.com I suggest you check it out. As for the documentary that i saw - its an incredibly well-structured presentation, with ample proof for everything that is said during its course. No speculations, just plain evidence.
Back up this statement with facts, Coward. Or better yet: make a movie about it, and distribute worldwide. :-)
>This guy already did.
Well, the guy did say his one purpose with the movie was to unseat George W. Bush. How much more evidence do you need?
Here are some sites/articles that might be helpful:
Bowling For Truth
Washington Post article
Washington Times article
I wouldn't take anything Moore says without a supply of salt. Not that I completely trust the first website, either.
--RJ
Check out this. I'm a pretty radical guy and I don't care much for moore either. The man got too big for his head.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
You may find more truth here.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
Although Micheal Moore is a "documentary maker", his documentaries don't stand up to tough analysis. He has apparently used rather dodgy editing techniques (Charlton Heston's tie changes colour in what is supposedly one speech) and staged events and presented them as real (getting a shotgun from a bank). Although I am left wing and I enjoy Micheal Moore movies, I see them as the same type of documentary as The Office or This is Spinal Tap.
Decode these
"Back up this statement with facts, Coward. Or better yet: make a movie about it, and distribute worldwide. :-)"
It's his opinion, he doesn't need to back it up. Moore certainly doesn't back up most of what he says, and the film in question is an opinion piece as much as that was an opinion post.
Moore is certainly not my favorite outlet for opinions, even though in this case I coincidentally agree with the overall message of the film. Appaently the most convincing and telling parts of the film are from footage that's already been publically circulated. The one clip of the film I've seen, where he ambushes politicians and asks if they want to "sign their kids up to go to Iraq." This just struck me as dishonest and showy. No one can sign other people up for anything, and I heard that one particular politician answered that he had two nephews in Iraq, but was left out of the film.
Moore's film is an opinion piece, and it doesn't pretend to give the other side a fair due, but I think that the issue deserves a film that tries to present a balanced and thoughtful opinion.
Yup...
My problem with Moore's films is not the content, but the way he presents it. He uses sound-bites out of context, he engages in "creative" editing giving the impression that two totally unrelated things are, in fact, related. He uses heart-string tugging musical scores, his comical quick-cuts are all too often offensively misleading, etc., etc.
These are not documentary film-making techniques; they are propaganda tricks.
What's most distressing is that viewers of his films invariably end up saying things like, "You should see this movie, so you can think for yourself." or "Moore's movie really puts everything in perspective."
A.) I don't need to see a movie to be capable of thinking for myself. Mainly because I can read.
B.) The movie, in fact, intentionally presents a skewed perspective.
Cato receives funding from the oil industry, and had Fox News head honcho Rupert Murdoch as a director. Now that's what I call fair and balanced reporting!
Here are all the things found wrong with Bowling. Some news sources have accused Fahrenheit of doing the same thing.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
There is a pretty good response to this article here. Not sure if Moore himself has responded yet.
Even according the that truth about Michael Moore site, that bank really does give away guns as immediate payment of interest on a CD, rather than making you wait for it to mature over a few years. So it seems your review doesn't stand up to tough analysis either. (and yes, I know I've simplified my response, so please don't bother trying to point out anything I didn't mention, like you don't walk in with cash and walk out with a gun. The post I'm replying implies the bank in question doesn't really give out guns at all, which is incorrect)
While there is a bit of this movie that isn't really informational and is meant to appeal to emotion, there are some VERY disturbing pieces of infomration given:
-21 members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country on special chartered flights on September 13 while all other flights were grounded. They were NEVER questioned on Osama at all and there is no clear reason why they were given free flight out without interrogation.
-Prior to the war in Afghanistan, there were plans on the board to put in a gas pipeline through the country. Members of the Taliban visited Texas regarding the issue. The project was abandoned after the US bombed Afghanistan in 1999. After the recent war, Hamid Karzai was made the leader. The papers were signed giving the green light for the pipline. Prior to being the leader, Karzai was a consultant for one of the companies trying to build the pipeline.
-Prior to 9/11, Bush had been on vacation over 40 percent of his time in office. During one of those vacations, he was given a security brief that outlined Osama bin Laden training his agents to fly planes in the US as tools of terror. Condi Rice talked about that memo in some of the investigations. Nothing was done about it.
-Pre 9/11, many Bush administration officials are ON THE RECORD as saying that Saddam Hussein didn't have any weapons of mass destruction nor was he capable and wasn't a threat. AFTER 9/11, their tune was exactly opposite. Why?
-Condi Rice is on camera saying "There is a definite connection between Iraq and 9/11." We now know that isn't true.
There are many more points he made that I think MUST be addressed by the Bush administration. If they cannot dispute them, then in my opinion any person with one ounce of thought ability should never consider voting for him.
Hitchens discloses many of the Movie's errors quite effectively.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
It's not just the fact that Michael Eisner of Disney did not want Disney to distribute the film. Fahrenheit 9/11 won the highest prize, the Palm D'Or, at the recent Cannes competition! It is only the second documentary in history to do so. The film received the longest standing ovation in the history of the Cannes festival!
This story in Fahrenheit 9/11 is relevant to Slashdot because the situation is far worse than Michael Moore says. I put together links to 2 other movies and 35 books that say there is an extremely serious problem: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. Slashdotted? Try:
http://www.hevanet.com/peace/usgovcorruption.htm. Michael Moore is reporting things EVERY Slashdot reader and every person in the world needs to know. It they get their way, you WILL become poorer.
People like the movie because they like the movie! Fahrenheit 9/11 is selling out everywhere. Today in the Sports [!] section of the Kansas City Star is an example. The writer, Jason Whitlock, says:
"Fahrenheit is the most powerful movie I've ever seen. Not even Moore's heavy-handed, pro-Democrat slant could undermine his indictment of Bush's reaction to 9/11. The movie appears to have struck a chord with American moviegoers. I spent all Friday afternoon and evening driving from North Carolina theater to North Carolina theater trying to see the movie. The showings were all sold out. I snagged one of the last tickets to a mid-day Saturday showing."
Judging from the stories, other reactions in the U.S. are even more enthusiastic than this. A theater with 10 screens in Portland, Oregon scheduled 18 showings for today, Sunday, June 27, 2004, in reaction to the movie's popularity on Friday and Saturday.
(Reading the Kansas City Star commentary, 'Fahrenheit' powerful, persuasive, requires free registration. Be wary, the company says it will send you email, so you might give a trash email address, or use a free trash email address at Mailinator.com or DodgeIt.com. Judging from the registration information, if you give a real postal mail address, they may send you unwanted mail, also.)
The movie is breaking all-time theater records all over the United States.
and here is a rebuttal to Hardy Law.
Do you have a source for your claim about Heston's tie?
How about actually watching the movie?
Yes, the tie changes color because Moore splices together different bits and pieces to get Heston to sound like a real villain.
It's dishonest and it's wrong.
And what about his visit to Lockheed Martin? He tries to suggest they make weapons there even though they make weather and communication satellites.
Like I said. The movie itself is the source. Anyone checking Moore's "documentary" for accuracy will realize the film is nothing but dishonest propaganda.
But don't take it from me. Watch the movie. Try to verify it's claims. You're in for an eye-opener.
Hitchens discloses many of the Movie's errors quite effectively.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
People should stop attacking this media excerpt from Michael Moore's mind as an opinionated, 100-minute political attack ad.
They should begin to form a cogent and socially-acceptable response to the questions he raises during the course of the film.
I watched "Bowling For Columbine" yesterday and was impressed with Moore's production values. Near the end of the movie, where he converses with Charlton Heston of the NRA, is particularly illustrative of the point of his work. He asks Heston why he defends gun ownership when six year-old child can enter a classroom and gun down another six year-old child. Heston walked away at that point and I believe I know why.
Michael Moore's film was only illustrative of negative consequences of the Freedoms this country gives to it's citizens (2nd Amendment in this case). Those freedoms exist because they were chosen by the Founders of this country. Negative events sometimes occur with the freedoms we enjoy but we cannot be mired in the past. As a country we must accept the bad with the good if we are to remain free. Bush does not see this and is blinded by money and power.
What Moore presenting in this current movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11", is only information about how our basic freedoms are being curtailed by people in Power. These people also have suspicious connections to the the events of September 11, 2001. No matter your opinion on the issues he raises, ask yourself one question. Can you objectively answer the questions he raises and not resort to ad hominem attacks or questioning of his information?
Michael Moore is a film-maker. If you find yourself with only question after seeing this movie, he has made a good film.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
OK... He claimed Bush let some Bin Laden family members out of the country during the air lockdown. This is not true. They were clearly let out of the country after the air restrictions were lifted. And yes, they are the same Bin Laden family is the infamous Osama belongs to, but just because one family member is evil doesn't have to mean the rest are evil.
As a side note, the Bin Ladens are a family of oil tycoons, just the people Bush would want to slowly corrupt.
documentary adj. 1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Notice the word objectively. By definition this film is not a documetary. It is leftist election year propaganda that panders to people who don't pay attention to real news sources. The worst part is the majority of viewers will accept this all as pure fact; not the product of a skilled spin-doctor pushing his agenda. I am not against others voicing their opinions and sharing their views, even if I do not agree with them. What I do have a problem with is blatantly biased material presented as a documentary.
worst sig ever. . .
Uh, libel isn't protected by the First Amendment and isn't free speech. If someone can truthfully say something bad about the film or Moore, there's little he can do about that.
However, if someone's going to go out and say that Moore made up the camcorder version of the kids' reading in Florida, or that it happened on another day and Moore spliced it in under lies, that's what I believe Moore is saying is reason for a lawsuit.
Remember, slander and libel are *NOT* protected free speech in America.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
From http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
"The New York Times says that Michael Moore's new movie "blithely tramples the boundary between documentary and demagoguery" and that it is more like an "editorial cartoon." That's what the Times says. What does DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe have to say about the film? He says he believes its assertions and that it is "fair and factually based." These are the people we want running our country, aren't they?"
Basically this movie has just enough truth to make people believe everything else it states. Very dangerous.
Actually, I consider every single news flash regarding SCO more importan than a movie that you believe will make a fundamental impact on the future of how politics are played out in America, because I believe Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11 is little more than a heavily biased satire with truth buried so deep beneath the surface of the film that it is impossible to know what to trust and what to discard as satire.
See the movie. I have, and Moore lists (just about) every single source he uses up front. Newspaper articles, dates, firsthand accounts from relevant experts... you can't say Moore is distorting what so-and-so says when so-and-so is saying it right into the camera.
Moore is definitely biased, but at least he admits his bias, and gives you his supporting evidence up front. Which is more than the Bush Administration has done vis-a-vis Iraq.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
I wouldn't take anything the Washington Times says without a a few shakers of salt. The thing that first caught my eye was their obvious right-wing bias; but what really took the cake for me is that the paper is owned by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
We're not talking about Lockheed-Martin as a whole, just the one plant. Moore said in Bowling for Columbine that the Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton, CO made ICBMs. This is not true.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Yes, the tie changes color because Moore splices together different bits and pieces to get Heston to sound like a real villain.
l ingforcolumbine /scenes/hestonrally1.htm
It's dishonest and it's wrong.
Here's the "changing tie" claim on bowling for truth (scroll down to the section "Timeline Trickiness").
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bow
You will see a very interesting image, a collage of 3 images from Bowling for Columbine-- Heston in blue tie, a billboard, and Heston in a red tie. These are 3 consecutive images from Bowling for Columbine.
Ask yourself why is the billboard image cropped so much that it is not readable?
The billboard as shown in the movie (I'm working from memory here) is an advertisement for the upcoming Denver NRA event at which Heston speaks while wearing the blue tie.
The grandparent poster claimed, "Charlton Heston's tie changes colour in what is supposedly one speech"
But, according to bowlingfortruth.com in the movie you are introduced to Charlton Heston with his trademark catchphrase, then you are shown a billboard that says there will be an NRA Annual meeting in Denver, then you are shown a scene from the Heston speech at Denver, where Heston is wearing different clothes, in a different room, with a different backdrop.
Dishonest how? Wrong why?
Or are you just picking nits because you cannot find any actual factual errors in the movie?
I think the bowlingfortruth.com site is the best thing that could have ever happened for F911. That is, it prepared Moore for the nitpicking and distortion that will be done to F911. There isn't a single word in F911 that hasn't been thoroughly researched and verified by a team of fact checkers.
Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
The governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, is George's brother.
I stayed through the credits. There was an AVID credit but no FCP credit.
> I'm surprised no one has written a book on Michael
> Moore, because there is a lot of evidence that
> could be covered.
David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke have. The book just came out called, "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man"
Actually, the majority of bin Laden's did leave the country during the lockdown. Only one family member was evacuated in the weeks following and it was made public almost immediately. He was a student was begining to be harrassed. The issue of course is that none of them including hte last was questioned. What makes this crimial is the fact that the family was still in touch with Osama. The movie talks about this event as the wedding of one of Osama's sons. It didn't go on to quote the poem that the son read regarding the destruction of the USS Cole
n +p oem&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf -8&oe=utf-8
http://www.google.com/search?q=osama+wedding+so
google search.
The Bin Laden family gained much more of their wealth through construction. They have been the main firm in the service of the Saudi king to build roads and infrastructure. Oil came later and certainly it's no shock that the Bush family would want to continue positive relations with wealthy Saudi elite.
The Lowes theater chain has just been acquired by Bain Capital, Spectrum Equity... and the Carlyle Group, which has rather extensive ties to the Bush Family/Administration and the Bin Ladens, and plays a rather prominent role in Farenheit 9/11 if I understand correctly.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
she actually named her book "Treason", implying that anyone not supporting the Bush administration or any one of the wars our president starts is a traitor and should be killed.
I believe that the title "Treason" refers to a number of people within the U.S. government who were working for the Soviets back during the big communist scare. Many of those accused were proven to be guilty in later years with the release of intercepted Soviet cable traffic.
Your reading of the title was quite a stretch. Did you read the book?
Evil is the money of root.
21 members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country on special chartered flights on September 13 while all other flights were grounded. They were NEVER questioned on Osama at all and there is no clear reason why they were given free flight out without interrogation.
Not only was this authorized by Dick Clark himself, but the bin Laden family had also disowned Osama a while back. Do you expect to be detained / questioned it your disowned nephew, with whom you haven't talked in twenty years, goes and kills someone?
Prior to the war in Afghanistan, there were plans on the board to put in a gas pipeline through the country. Members of the Taliban visited Texas regarding the issue. The project was abandoned after the US bombed Afghanistan in 1999. After the recent war, Hamid Karzai was made the leader. The papers were signed giving the green light for the pipline. Prior to being the leader, Karzai was a consultant for one of the companies trying to build the pipeline.
Where is the pipeline? What evidence is there that is it being constructed? Unocal, the company which was originally planning on making the pipeline, issued this statement, categorically affirming that they have "no plans or interest in becoming involved in any projects in Afghanistan." So, which company is building the pipeline?
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
Moore commented Friday during an interview with the syndicated program Good Day Live that he may include the undedited video from that classroom event as an extra on the DVD version.
It's a debatable issue whether the president should have cut his visit to the classroom short when he was told that a second plane had hit the second tower. The principal of the school says that Bush did the right thing because running out of the classroom would have scared the kids... however those kids would eventually be told to stand quietly in the backround as the president made his first comments to the world about the 9/11 events. Moore claims that the president put those kids at risk because the president could have been a target in such a crisis, but he was a moving target and the hijackers only went after stationary ones.
Christopher Hitchens, a long time liberal and very respected writer, has a excellent critique of the movie here
Didn't he say or imply that bin Laden family members left the US while all flights were grounded and without interviews, when in fact they left after flights resumed and they were made available for interviews, with some interviewed and some not? (The fact that some weren't is not good, but Moore's "facts" are wrong.)
Didn't he say Bush spent 42% of his time on vacation, when in fact Bush spent 42% of his time not at the White House (including weekends), but often working those days? Many of these days included meetings with foreign dignitaries, etc, but the meetings occurred in Crawford or at Camp David.
Let's see, did he not imply that the Taliban visited Bush in Texas while he was governer, when in fact Bush did not meet with them and they were in the country at the invitation of the Clinton administration?
Didn't he say that the Secret Service only guards the Saudi embassy, when in fact it's uniformed division guards many embassies?
Didn't he make a big deal of Bush et al getting hair/makeup care before public appearances, making them appear vain and shallow? If that's legitimate, I guess nearly all public figures and most women qualify. Sheesh, what a misuse of "facts"!
We could go on, but the fact is Moore is vociferous and entertaining, but not terribly talented nor concerned with the truth. If you think this is a documentary with a "whole fact-checking team" behind it, you are naive indeed. I edit videos for a living and know it's trivial to edit things together to make anyone look like a fool or villan. Heck, If I had three hours of Moore footage, I could make him look worse than anyone he's slashed.
And here's a rebuttal of Hardylaw on Kuro5hin.
Personally, I don't like either of them, but until Rush disappears, I'm glad Moore's there.
From the Seattle Times: For example, in Osceola County, Fla., Walt Disney World receives the farming break on 1,600 acres of pasture, timber and nurseries where it grows plants for its theme parks. The land, worth $194 million, is taxed as if it were worth $12.3 million, according to the county land records office. Disney spokeswoman Jacquee Polack said the company keeps a buffer of undeveloped land around the park, but she acknowledged some of this property will be developed.
But this probably wasn't what Moore was thinking about... :-)
What, me worry?
Yes - from Common Dreams (who, in turn was quoting the Israeli newspaper Haaretz):
link for your convenience.
Another link
Too many to even list here, but here's a typical example (from the Center for American Progress claim vs. fact db):
Bush knew, or should have known, that his claim was false.
Sean
"We've found ten or twelve Sarin and Mustard rounds," said Charles Duelfer, David Kay's replacement in Iraq.
If they haven't found WMD, then those shells do not exist. Also the UN Security Council has been briefed on the WMD that were shipped out of Iraq before and during the Iraqi War.
How interesting. The 9/11 commission just declared none.
So Commission Member Democrat Lee Hamilton is lying?
"There were connections between al- Qaida and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree on that." -- Lee Hamilton
These are facts. Aren't you upset that we have been misled?
No you had Democratic talking points, you were misled. I would ask Micahael Moore for your money back, you let him turn you into a public fool.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The political compass will plot your viewpoints on a two dimensional scale and let you compare your ideas with past and present world leaders.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
One drop of Sarin can kill a man. A shell contains several thousand drops. Three Sarin rounds can kill more people than died on 9/11. That's pretty "mass" if you ask me. If you think Mustard Gas is a walk in the park, read up on WWI.
Now we have to figure out what your version of "Mass" is. Mine comes from UN Resolution 1441. Why does it seem that now we are finding WMD in Iraq, that the anti-war is changing the argument? It's gone from "Saddam had no WMD!!!" to "Saddam didn't have the right amount of WMD!!!".
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Also, I think you seem to have trouble differentiating between a lie and operating on false assumptions.
That's very much true. There is a problem though when you get your false assumptions by ignoring evidence that goes against your predrawn conclusions, and consider unreliable evidence most important because it agrees with them. Most of the whitehouse's intelligence on iraq was taken from chalabi, and the iraqi defectors he brought in to tell them what they wanted to hear. The CIA at that point had documented chalabi as a fraud, with clear evidence of a long campaign of lying and evidence of him cooperating with iran, but the bush administration ignored this and instead chose to believe someone known to be a fraud. At the same time they dismissed what the weapons inspectors were saying as bogus. Ignorance of the law is not a defense in a criminal court, and I think being ignorant of the facts on purpose should not be a defense in the court of public opinion.
But, hey, you want a clear lie from bush, here is one.
And that's just where it starts, do a little googling on "bush lies", and you'll turn up tons of lies he has personally told on a wide range of subjects.
Ofcourse, it is hard to catch him personally in a lie, because he always gets someone in his administration to do the lying for him. They call it plausible deniability, and for me it doesn't fly. He can't not be aware of the liars on his administration. That he not only tolerates them, but supports them, proves he approves of the lies.
WHY would Bush lie about WMD's?
I don't think he knowingly lied about that pre-invasion. I think he chose to believe the fabricated evidence that pointed to iraqi wmd's. Still, that just makes him incompetent instead of a liar. That's the problem, you can't look at reality and not go "either bush is incompetent, or he's a liar."
Well put, here in Holland, Michael Moore would be considered to be on the moderate left.
My favorite part:
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Of course time shifting can also be used to highlight a point that is important that people would miss otherwise.
Take for example a recent CNBC interview where Dick Cheney was caught lying about something he said on Meet the Press earlier which was also a lie about the Al Qaeda Iraq meeting in Praque.
The Daily show caught him at it and showed the video side by side. It was a very effective and legitimate technique for shooting down all the Bush fanboys like Twirlip who insist the Bush administration never lies. The video was replayed on Larry King this weekend when he was interviewing John Daily.
The best right up I've seen on it is on spinsanity.
"During the CNBC interview, Cheney also dissembled in the following exchange about Mohammed Atta, an Al Qaeda member who was allegedly involved in the September 11 attacks (a witness claimed that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in the spring of 2001, a heavily disputed assertion that the FBI and CIA have questioned):"
BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."
CHENEY: No, I never said that.
BORGER: OK.
CHENEY: I never said that.
BORGER: I think that is...
CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don't know.
But as a White House transcript demonstrates, Cheney said in a December 9, 2001 interview on "Meet the Press" that, "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." (our emphasis)
@de_machina
Someone worked out the figures on this. 40% sounds, well, incredibly high. The only way they could match this figure was to count weekends - all of them. Given that there are 52 weekends in a year, some math gives us 28% of the year as being a weekend. So by simply not counting those dates we get a more reasonable 12%.
Now, obviously, the percentage probably should count weekends spent durning vacations, but I can't find a list of when Bush went on vacation, so I can't duplicate the research.
Besides, as Moore implies with that "received a memo about Osama bin Laden," it's not like Bush wasn't doing work while on those vacations - otherwise, why would he be reading a memo on vacation?
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Actually, Moore does not claim that they flew out when all others were grounded. He claims that they flew out when others were grounded (note the missing "all"). Newsweek is not telling the truth.
What Moore claims is in fact completely true. They flew when the FAA was just beginning to lift the ban; they were among the very first planes in the sky. The large majority of the planes were grounded still, including ALL charter aircraft (which the Bin Ladens' planes were).
The Newsweek article made several factual errors in its criticism. Big ones. And it's worse than that: the article was written by Michael Isakoff, a reporter (not a movie critic, natch) who was the recipient of lots of secret information from the Bush White House earlier on which turned out to be all false. Isakoff was so central to the missteps that he could have been discussed in the movie. The irony here is on the level of having Bill Gates review a book about the evils of commercial software. Newsweek is catching a lot of flak for this bad of a review by this bad a choice of a reviewer.
Don't get me wrong: I think a ton of F9/11 is annoying and unfair. But this part isn't. Newsweek's criticisms have recently been revealed to be nearly 100% BS.
The bin Laden extended family and other Saudis were allowed to fly within the United States on chartered planes when all other planes were grounded. These charter flights gathered them together from around the country in Texas and Washington, D.C.
The bin Laden extended family and other Saudis were allowed to leave the U.S. on the first day that the airspace was generally opened, and they left over the next week in several charter planes. At least one flight may have departed the U.S. before the airspace was generally opened, but most of the flights leaving the U.S. took place after the airspace was open.
This is no longer in dispute -- there are eyewitness accounts and flight plans and takeoff/landing records from airports and FOIA records that all support these facts, especially the intra-U.S. flights during the no-fly period. The FBI was substantially involved in organizing and providing protection for these people.
The bin Laden family received special treatment from the U.S. government, approval for which came from quite high up (it's not completely clear where; Richard Clarke said he takes responsibility for the decision, but never said he made it himself).
Many conservative commentators have attempted to confuse the issue by changing this claim to "All the Saudis were flown out of the country while the no-fly was still in effect", then refuting this claim, and declaring their work done and the claim to be entirely false. That's not the claim, and it's not false, and Moore, although he presented an abbreviated version of the claim in his movie, didn't say anything false about the claim at all.
First off, I want to say that if Michael Moore had information about Abu Ghraib before it came out on the news, it was his civic duty to bring it out to the public. No, Michael Moore did not do that because HE IS OUT TO MAKE MONEY! He will put anything on screen, even if it's an out and out lie, just so he can make money. See the article on slate:
Slate
Also, it is said the Mr. Moore says that the Bush government is so in bed with the Saudi's....well if that was so, how come we had to move our headquarters to Doha, Qatar?? It definitely was not a decision the miltary would have made! Why reestablish airbases in Qatar when you had everything all setup in Saudi? Also, if your opposed to the war, why talk about not having enough troops? Did you not say moments before the war you want them to NOT send troops? Also, it is INSULTING to the American soldiers he so dedicates the movie to that he had this video of the happeings at Abu Ghraib and did not bring it out in the proper way. The WHOLE army was not involved at Abu Ghraib. It was simply a few bad apples who overstepped their authority. It has been said that Hezbollah, one of the biggest terrorist and ANTI American (left or right) groups out there are willing to put up their own money to get this movie shown in the UAE!
Farenheit 9/11 a hit with Hezbollah
If Mr. Moore so cares about our troops, then why is he painting our whole military in a extremely bad light. Does he have any idea what this would do to undermine our efforts? How this movie may so inflame the terrorists??
Read this World Net Daily article...theatures are saying no to this film in droves.....todate only 417 theaters are showing Fahrenheit 9/11.
Thaters say no
Also, about his previous movie, Bowling for Columbine, he suggests in that movie that gun problems in schools are rampant yet he misses the facts. The facts have pointed out before Columbine, school violence is going DOWN not UP! It's just reprehensible what he's doing here. I support his freedom to say what he wants, but what he's said in this movie and others he's made has been SLANDER!
Gorkman
This is a point that I am tired of correcting people on. This did not happen as you are lead to believe in the movie. On September 13th commercial flights had already resumed, but private flights were still restricted. Permission came, not from the President, but from Richard Clarke who was a hold-over from the Clinton White House and not a Bush puppet. 22 of the 26 people that were on that flight WERE, in fact, interviewed and cleared by the FBI prior to leaving.
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m12 82/is_18_55/ai_109411350
The funniest thing about this, is that everyone who watches the movie leaves with the same wrong impression: that while all other airplanes are stuck on the ground, the bin Ladins are give special permission from the President to be the only plane flying. The fact is, that this is a clear case of spin-doctoring. It is common in politics. This is a way of saying TRUE things, but leading people to specific conclusion that may not be accurate. Moore is a master of this kind of work.
Don't get me wrong, I like Moore's work, but at respect him as an Artist... not as a champion of truth.
Bush may have a relationship with the bin Ladin family, but when you are lead to believe that the bin Ladins were given special treatment because of that relationship, it can piss people off. However, this never happened. It is clear that Bush cannot be blamed for the bin Ladin family and Saudi nationals leaving the country... if you know the facts, it just cannot be substantiated; but Moore, knowing the facts, misleads his film-goers.
I'm not saying don't see the movie. I think everyone should see the movie. Moore has crafted a relevant, entertaining movie. But it IS a commercial movie, and commercial movies are made in order to make money. So, go out an enjoy the film, just don't trust everything you think you hear. Double-check the facts before assuming that your conclusions are correct.
- just my $0.02
"Perhaps most amazingly, votaries of 'diversity' insist on absolute conformity." -- Tony Snow
How about just a few "twists" of the truth to start?
President Bush's reaction to news of the Sept. 11 attacks
Moore uses video of the president as Bush learned that a second jet had hit the World Trade Center the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The president was in a classroom in Sarasota, Fla., listening to second-graders read.
Bush sat in the classroom for seven minutes after learning of the news from his chief of staff, Andrew Card. Moore superimposes a timer on the screen to document the passage of time, then asks what was going through the president's mind. Was he, Moore wonders, regretting spending 42% of his first eight months in office on "vacation?"
Moore bases his quip on an Aug. 6, 2001, story in the Washington Post that said by the end of that month Bush would have spent 42% of his first seven months in office "at vacation spots or en route." The calculation included weekends spent at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Md., and a month-long "working vacation" at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Moore doesn't say that the "vacation" days included weekends or that Bush worked part of most of those days. He met, for example, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The other message Moore sends is that Bush was frozen, unable to do anything until he was told what to do by his aides. The independent 9/11 commission reported that Bush told its members he felt it was important to remain calm when not much was known about the attacks. Andrew Card told ABC's Good Morning America this week that Bush showed "a moment of shock, and he did stare off maybe for just a second."
The decision to let some Saudis leave the USA shortly after 9/11 and alleged connections among the Bush family, Saudi royalty and Osama bin Laden's family
Moore questions why the Bush administration allowed 142 Saudis, including members of bin Laden's family, to fly out of the USA Sept. 14 through Sept. 24, 2001. He suggests that business ties between oil-rich Saudi Arabia and the Bush family might have resulted in special treatment for some Saudi citizens -- even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 were Saudis.
The implication: Saudis who might have had information about the attacks -- or even been involved -- slipped through the president's fingers.
But the movie does not point out that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left the USA and that investigators say no one on board the planes has turned out to be of interest. The independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."
An alleged connection between Bush and the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan
In December 1997, a delegation of top Taliban officials visited the USA at the invitation of officials from Unocal, a California-based oil and gas company with extensive business dealings in Texas. At the time, Unocal was pursuing a deal to construct a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Moore notes that the delegation visited Texas while Bush was governor. He doesn't say the delegation met with Bush, but that is implied.
In fact, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What Moore also doesn't say is that Clinton administration officials at the State Department did sit down with the Taliban officials and that their visit was made with the Clinton administration's permission.
Your claims about Moore's movie are not true. Here's Moore's reply to the accusation you make, taken from michaelmoore.com:
June 20th, 2004
What Fahrenheit 9/11 Says About the Saudi Flights Out of the Country After September 11
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
No, Moore did not claim that the Bin Ladens were let out during the lockdown. He says they flew out on the 13th, which was when the FCC was starting to let planes get off the ground again. Regardless, they were the close family members of the main suspect and were shipped out with no serious questioning about the crime, in direct contravention of all normal police policy. Also, seeing as members of the family were seen with OBL late in the 90s, that hardly indicates that he was disowned.
This article, by ex-leftie Christopher Hitchens, makes a far better response to this than I ever could.
D
Wow. The parent post managed to mangle two different definitions and mislead folks in the same way it condemns.
the parent post takes the separate "adjective" definition and splices in words into the "noun" definition while implying that it's all part of the "noun" definition of "documentary".
Here is the real dictionary.com link.
The noun version (the parent post did start with the words "A work...") in its entirey is "A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration."
The parent post spliced in words from the second definition of the adjective version of the word, and the adjective mentions the "objectively without editorializing", and even in that case it is only one of multiple valid definitions. The parent post purposely ignored the first definition of the adjective "Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents." (Yup, that's the first definition listed in its entirety).
And thus the parent post use of "Further, it restricts the presentation..." is highly misleading since it certainly does not make a firm restriction or preclude its use in other ways.
And the ONLY other NOUN definition on that page is "a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event". And certainly that describes F911 just darn fine.
Don't believe me? Here are the facts. You decide.
dipshit, moore never claims this.... WTFM before you make stupid posts
In the interests of dialog, I'll try to respond to this when I get back (I have a wedding to go to), but I believe this article is deeply flawed. An example I can whip out real quickly: The person who wrote the article states that the 9/11 commission found that the bin ladens left the country after the airspace had been re-opened. This is a VERY deceptive statement. on September 13th, the air space had been re-opened, but no passengers were allowed to fly until sept 14th. Sept 13th was used to reshuffle the airplanes back to where they should be so that flights could resume the 14th.
No passengers were allowed, *except* for these special charter flights that took the Bin Ladens and the Saudi royalists out of the country.
Hitchens then states that Clark allowed these flights - and thus Moore is a liar.
Well, these saudis were allowed to fly befor anyone else, were not questioned, and were allowed to do so by a member of the Bush administration (Clark was indeed a member of the bush administration, or do you dispute that fact as well). Not one iota of this contradicts Moore and Ferenheit 9/11.
Once again, Moore uses facts, while the talking heads on the right jsut say wheever they want to, so long as it's consistant with their idology - facts be damned.
I'll try to reply more to it when I get back from the wedding.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Example: I was in a bar with a bunch of guys from work and one said something to the effect that Canada should help the US more in Iraq. This was a very unpopular opinion, and the rest of the group definitely questioned the first guy's allegience to Canada.
Another example: I was in Quebec and witnessed an argument between some English speakers and some Francophones that went to a level of vitriol I've NEVER seen in the States. And both sides were calling each other "traitor".
So while Canada is a fine place and does many things better (especially socially) than the USA, the parent's sanctimonious drivel is nothing more than moose droppings.
Neo-conservatives != Socialism.
You could argue that BUSH has abandonded some of the Republican ideals, but to say the whole Neo-conservative movement has moved to Socialism is fallacious.
Bad example. The film says the Bush Administration got the Saudis out of the US after 9/13. Richard Clark was at the time a member of the Bush Administration.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Ok, you asked for it:
F 40 B13FA35590C768CDDAC0894DC404482
l m. moore.reut/
9 086.sh tml
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=
Also, if you don't want to register:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/02/fi
Or
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/28
Dude, it was all over the national news for weeks. It DID happen and Disney DID refuse to distribute the film...
this makes a good counterpoint to everything hitchens says...
Now, you tell me if that connection is "close and convoluted":
Here's background (including flight manifest) that clarifies "Flight of Fantacy" errors of "bitchslapped" & Moore.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
Regarding open source alternatives to Lexis-Nexis et. al., I think that we're starting to see the emergence of these sources with the Groklaw project. Groklaw right now is confined to a narrow issue, but it publishes primary source material and commentary that is superior to many paid services, and in an open source fashion. It is only possible for Groklaw to do this, however, by focusing on a single issue.
I hope that we will see more open source political projects like Groklaw in the future for other important issues.
> a similar bombing campaign against Yugoslavia
> some years ago. The same international laws
> were broken then as well.
You're probably referring to Article 2 Section 4 of the U.N. Charter, which is not the Same Thing as international law. Anyway, you may also wish to read Articles 11 (1) and 39 of said charter which seem to make provisions for enforcing human rights norms. You might argue that these would also apply to the Iraq war, but I seem to recall that the WMD argument was the main rationale used for justification.
I would be curious to hear how these are "similar bombing campaign[s]".
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president ... is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
All the interviews tool place after his death
"Lipscomb became involved in the project after receiving a call from Moore's company. Staffers had read a magazine article that mentioned her son's death. She met with Moore, a Davison native, at her house. "
The New York Times: Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out?
By PHILIP SHENON / The New York Times
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/ind ex.php?id=25
some quotes follow, please see the link for the full article...
After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career).
Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.
"We have gone through every single word of this film; literally every word; and verified its accuracy," said Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month. Ms. Doroshow is responsible for preparing what she calls a "fact-checking bible," with material ranging from newspaper and magazine articles to copies of the Federal Register, that will allow the film's lawyers and publicists to provide backup for its allegations."
That said, Mr. Moore's fact-checkers does not view the film as straight reportage. "This is an Op-Ed piece, it's not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. "This is not The New York Times, it's not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."
Besides, it may turn out that the most talked-about moments in the film are the least impeachable. Mr. Moore makes extensive use of obscure footage from White House and network-news video archives, including long scenes that capture President Bush at his least articulate. For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world.
It could be that even more than average fell into this demographic for this movie, but I'd like to see some real evidence before I believe that, but otherwise this doesn't look any different than the null hypothesis to me.
The poster to which I replied made the following claim: "Michael Eisner is quoted in the press as saying that he didn't want to risk having certain tax benefit revoked...." I challenged the truth of that statement. None of the replies to me so far have even remotely supported the poster's original statement, and none of the links you provided have any link from Eisner saying any such thing, so what you're saying is not responsive to what I said.
I believe the current rule is 35% not a "vast majority".
_ en tertainment/canadian_content/
Shielding your culture from a gigantic assualt from the south is not brainwashing. Supporting and nurturing of domestic artists is a good thing. If anybody still buys music, buying local music instead of stuff produced in a foreign country is not a bad thing either.
Give your head a shake.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-68-1150-6316/arts
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/
The Fifth Estats, a Canadian investigative show on CBC, had already done a documentary on 9/11 and literally EVERYTHING Moore says in his film is backed up by this episode (see link). In fact they had even MORE DAMAGING evidence which Moore does not include in his film to which I can only assume he HELD BACK that information in fear of a complete backlash from the American public.
It's very frightening what the Americans are ignoring about Bush. They have been so completely duped that even in the face of truth they can't come to grips with the fact the the Bush family is simply not out for the good of the American people.
I'm so happy to be Canadian, and proud to not have gone to war to line the pockets of your president and vice president.
PLEASE follow the link above and read everything you can from the online report (originally a tv documentary). PLEASE keep an open mind on the subject.
> What would have happened differently had the man jumped
> up out of his seat screamed out "HOLY SHIT KIDS, WE'RE
> GOING TO FUCKING DIE!" and then run out of the room?
I love how some people would like to believe that Bush had only two options: sit there are read "My Pet Goat" or get up screaming his head off that everyone was going to die.
The fact is before the event started, Bush was told that a plane crashed into the World Trade Center. Bush, not 6 weeks earlier had been given a briefing called "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States". Bin Laden had also tried to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Bush also knew by this time that Bin Laden was behind the U.S.S. Cole attack. I would hope that the man who is in charge of protecting our country would have thought, "I'm going to delay this photo op, since this might be serious." But, hey, maybe that's too much to ask.
So Bush sits down. Kids start reading. Bush is told a second plane crashes. At this point, a leader would tell the kids, "Keep up the good work reading. Thank you for inviting me today, but I'm being called away -- 'president stuff'," and he would have walked out.
There is absolutely every reason to believe that Bush was needed at the beginning of this. Bush is the only person who could give the order to scramble military jets to shoot down civilian aircraft if necessary. It was later determined that Cheney gave this order and no proof could be made that Cheney checked with Bush first, although he claimed the order came from Bush.
What does Bush do instead? He sits there. Eyes looking around. Then he picks up the "My Pet Goat" book. He reads the damn thing. He sits there for close to 10 minutes. I read his reaction as Bush waiting for someone to tell him what to do.
I hope the book was worth it.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
The biggest issue isn't whether or not they were allowed to fly when no one else could, is that they were allowed to fly out of the country at all. Fifteen of the hijackers were Saudis. According to the 9/11 Commission (Staff Statement No. 10), of the 142 Saudis that flew out of the country, only 30 were interviewed by the FBI. And how extensive do you think those interviews were?
Now, I'm not saying that all Saudis were suspects or that they should never have been allowed to leave the country. But why the rush? Especially given that we know there were ties between the terrorists and the Saudi government, ties that our government is doing its best to cover up (remember those 25 or so blacked out pages?). Why do the Saudi government any favors?
...everyone should know about Michael Moore's record for twisting facts.
Hardylaw's famous Bowling For Columbine critique.
Not to mention the fact that Moore started accusing Disney of "censoring" him days before Cannes, even though Disney told him LAST YEAR that they wouldn't be distributing the movie. Suddenly it became an issue right before Cannes...pretty convenient timing.
I agree that he is great at directing and editing an interesting picture. He even seems to make attempts at being independent (he voted for Nader in 2000). But even this time around he's not pretending it's a "documentary" anymore--just his opinion, a political pamphlet for Democrats that won't be changing anybody's minds. In other words, preaching to the choir. Hell, he thinks Kerry isn't left-wing ENOUGH. The guy is the Ann Coulter of the extreme left. For some reason, liberals have become completely radicalized since the 2000 election, and it's turning people off.
There are no voters under 17 in this nation, and kids are free to see R-rated movies with their parents (or at some theaters, parents can sign a form letting their kids see any R rated movie). If you want your kids to see the film, take them. Or get it on DVD when it comes out.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Washington, like many of his contemporaries, did not understand or believe in political parties, and saw them as fractious agencies subversive of domestic tranquility. When political parties began forming during his administration, and in direct response to some of his policies, he failed to comprehend that parties would be the chief device through which the American people would debate and resolve major public issues. It was his fear of what parties would do to the nation that led Washington to draft his Farewell Address.
SECTION FROM WASHINGTON'S FAREWALL ADDRESS:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
Moore didn't lie, but he could be accused of deceiving trying to make people think the Saudis were in the air when airspace was closed.
Michael Moore made his rounds on the late night talk shows (Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, etc) the night or two before Farenheit 9/11 opening. When he was on one of those two shows, I remember him specifically saying that the Saudis were the first group of people allowed to fly when the airspace reopened with their private jets. I don't remember him ever saying that they flew out of the country while the airspace was still closed, but he did say they were the first up in the air (even before any commercial airlines). Maybe this is just implied in his movie, maybe not, but he sure didn't make it sound that way when he was being interviewed. I remember him saying this, because he compared it to a "what if" scenario such as if Libyan government had family members in the US who wanted to leave, would they ever be allowed to in that situation, especially one as severe as Sept. 11th?
Just use"Eisner Moore 911 tax"
the best link I saw, and it took only 20 seconds to find, tops:
http://www.stargeek.com/item/118189.html
"Where is the quote from Eisner?"
So, Dumbass, how fucking lazy are you?
I live in Central Texas, about fifteen minutes from the Crawford Ranch that Bush stays in so often. It was very interesting here because all two of the local theatres refused to show the film (yes, they do show all the usual "opening everywhere" films on time), and I've heard nothing on the local news about F 9/11. The first time most people around here heard of Fahrenheit 9/11, or even Michael Moore were when the national commercials came on. Mind you, these aren't political dumbasses, most of them knew more than the average person about politics and candidates.
1) Are you protecting your country from being harmed?
2) Have you tried other ways to resolve the conflict?
3) Have you formally declared war?
4) Is the goal to return to peace?
5) No scorched earth tactic - don't attack civilians, don't attack infrastructure.
6) Use only vocationed military - no civilian contractors or mobs of common people.
Given the idea that war is ever justifiable, the criteria to which you seem to be referring would appear IMHO to mostly justify this one.
Comments in italics are from the second link searching for 'just war' on Google (which must therefore be authoritative):
# A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
Consider 10 years of refusal to comply with the terms of a treaty with the U.N., which was doing all it could to avoid futher conflict.
# A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
This is the main reason George W's father was against the war.
# A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
Again, if nothing else, Saddam was violating the terms of an established treaty, which has historically been cause to redeclare war (if it isn't, how are we to enforce treatys?). Also, it must be considered that there _was_ a link between the Iraqi administration and Al-Queida, even if it had nothing to do with 9/11. (Try googling before flaming, and look at only hard news, not propaganda)
# A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
That one's obvious
# The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
This seems to be the goal...
# The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
There wasn't that much injury suffered, but we didn't drop a nuclear bomb on them either. This is subjective, but as wars go, this has been a relatively bloodless one. Regardless of how many times this war is compared to Vietnam, there haven't been nearly the number of deaths for either side. I can easily point out many wars that are currently going on that have caused more death than this one
# The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Civilians have never been an approved target in this war. There have been many cases of collateral damage, but I would submit that this is much more common coming from the Iraqi attacks than America's.
Ah, yes... and here is my favorite passage from mooreexposed.com:
While we're at it: Bowling shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, while Moore scornfully intones that the plaque under it "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972."
The plaque actually reads that "Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas eve 1972." This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, but the viewer can't even trust Moore to honestly read a monument.
I now have a question for the reader:
What is a B-52 doing northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas eve 1972?
A) Sightseeing.
B) Planting flowers.
C) Killing Vietnamese people.
Apparently, the viewer can't trust mooreexposed.com to fully understand what the plaque tells us about this plane's actions on Christmas eve 1972.
As far as the White House being responsible for evacuating Saudis and Bin Ladins: who do you think Richard Clarke was working for? As he himself said: "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. And your link is to...Saudi-US-Relations.org!? Who the hell do you think funds that? That article is a mess. First it has this: Which makes it sounds like Clarke's claim of responsibility for the decision contradicts his testimony. Then it has this: So it sounds to me that after refusing to approve it until the FBI had looked at it, the FBI approved the list and it came back to Clarke. He got buy off from who ever else he needed it and made the decisions. But he can't recall who pushed the decision forward to begin with. I don't see any contradiction.
And then there is your critique on Moore's film style and a letter about the president acting presidential some other time.
Then you ask "how did such simple things get past Moore's fact checkers"!? What facts did he get wrong? You haven't shown any. Is this your example of research and critical thinking?
Is it true that for 7 minutes after Bush was told that the second plane hit the WTC, he continued to read to elementary schoolkids?
According to the Memory Hole, is is.
May we live long and die out
Bush has gone on record as saying that it'd be irrational for him to lose composure when so little was known of the attack at that point.
Fahrenheit 9/11 opened as the highest-grossing movie in the country, something no documentary has ever done before. And if you follow that link you'll see that it did it with approximately one-third the number of screens as any of the other movies in the list. This means that all showings, no matter what time, must be sold out. Have you ever heard of such a thing before? I haven't.
Even in Bush strongholds in the South, this movie has people lined up around the block waiting to see it.
Keep on saying the movie is doing "pretty darn poorly" and that it won't be around in another three weeks if it makes you feel better. Come September 1st, when it's released on DVD, Bushies are going to feel even worse.
People on the net have been discussing that for years. Same with the lie he told about seeing the first plane hit. Or the lie that Cheney told that there was a credible threat to Air Force 1, which is why Brave Brave Sir George had to spend the day hiding.
Yeah, the documented link between Osama and Hussein:
Osama: Can we use your country to build some terrorist training camps?
Hussein: Go bugger off, you fool!
end of link.
Do your homework.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Do you (does anyone, for that matter) *really* think Bush and Hitler are comparable in any way that's remotely important?
Yes.
They did shoot down the 4th plane. The "Hero" story has no truth.
Inform yourself or you will miss bigger lies when you need your bullshit detector the most.
Admittedly haven't seen the movie, but here is at least one prominent 'star' who says that Moore distorted what he said.
r /8 844533.htm
U J: www.startribune.com/stories/587/4810977.html+moore +minnesota+representative&hl=en
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperio
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Edvfh0AEQI
First round is primaries where parties vote for 1 candidate. These parties typically have a lot of money towards their candidates (too be honest, we are in a 2 party regime, republican and democrat, who have the same POV; Give to who ever pays the most). The popular vote in each state actually elects individuals (electorial college ) that are suppose to vote one way or another. In some states, it is a winner take all. In others it is percentage. Colorado, my home, is a winner takes all.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
NYTimes By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS - Published: May 4, 2004
"WASHINGTON -- U.S. commanders plan to keep U.S. troops at their current levels in Iraq -- about 135,000 -- until the end of 2005, Pentagon officials said Tuesday."
If the war in Iraq was truly about liberation, then any number of other sovereign states should've had priority.
Like...? I don't recall this ever being the sole purpose in going to Iraq.
If the war in Iraq was about "weapons of mass destruction", then we would've found some by now.
(1) There is a lot of sand in Iraq, which means a lot of hiding places. If you have ever lost anything in something as small as a beach, imagine the scale involved with a "beach" that is 167,924 square miles. (2) Saddam was not above "hiding" weapons (of any sort) in cemetaries and hospitals, so the number of places that one could expect to find anything pretty-much jumped to every square inch of the region. (3) Fox News and an ABC affiliate report on the fact that the United Nations found missile engines and other parts that were suited for the purpose of making WMDs in a scrap heap in Jordan. The source of all this metal? IRAQ.
If the war in Iraq was about "ties to al-qaeda", then we should've hit the Saudis first, 15 of the 19 highjackers on 9-11 were Saudis.
That's flawed reasoning. One should not condemn a nation based on the nationality of a criminal. Acting on a nation based on the actions of its Head of State is something quite different.
If the war was waged simply to procure cheap oil, then companies such as Haliburton would be clocking obscene profits in Iraq right now...
No, we'd be doing something to shut the mouths of people against drilling in the protected lands within the US. I agree that we should protect the land, so that environmental damage is minimized as much as possible, so don't think for a second that I'm in favor of drilling. By the same token, when the entire world is quite capable of watching the corporate goings-on (especially with regard to oil), I would hope that companies (like Haliburton) have the smarts to avoid doing something so blatently stupid. We all know, however, that not everyone thinks things through before acting...
Having said all this, I think that Moore has every right to think what he wants to think, and to make films based on these if that's how he wants to spend his time, even if it means people paying him for his extremist views. HOWEVER, for a pompous self-rightous man like him to put something like "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the same realm as a documentary when it offers absolutely no counter point is foolish and irrisponsible.
At least one person who should know agrees(*). If Moore was really so anxious about telling the truth (as he wants us to believe), I would like to see his take on the military prowress of Kerry, especially as it relates to Iraq.
* Link to http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ doesn't seem to work through the preview...
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
What GWB did and and what the revisionists claim he did on 9/11,
People in the top 2% of wealth pay over 90% of taxes.
uh, no.
taxes vs. income (see "Share of Income vs. Share of Taxes")
According to the CBO, the top 1% paid 23% of all federal taxes. However, they also made 16% of the nations income, and more interestingly, posessed 39% of the nation's wealth (see here, or just google "us wealth distribution")
Pay 23% of all taxes, and get 39% of the wealth? Sounds like a good deal to me.
For those who care about reality and other people, read the accounts at http://indict.org.uk/
Unless you are one of the people who find 3000 nude people in Cleveland high art ( http://www.spencertunick.com/ ), but feel 5 terrorist prisoners held naked by a renegade private is systematic torture by an oppressive regime.
Did we mention that Vladimir Putin reports Russian Intelligence verified Sadaam's initiatives to committ terror on US soil?
I will address your comments in order:
1) To hide, destroy or otherwise make WMDs disappear at the numbers of tonnes claimed by the administration prior to the war would at the least cause an observable environmental impact. This impact could be used to determine the ultimate fate of such weapons, whether or not they were destroyed, so it is a stretch to believe there were any weapons in the first place.
2) Iraq's armies were crippled by the effects of 10 years of sanctions that left the Army without funds to feed it's troops in the field. Iraqi soldiers were stealing food from local populations in places where they were fortunate enough to be near sustinence, and starving in forward desert deployments at the time the US invaded. Don't tell me they could have carried out an offensive, that idea is completely ludicrous.
3) The one place in the world where there is serious Oil expertise is the Middle East. Oil in Texas is a hit or miss proposition, and more wells have been put in and gone dry in a week than have been left there. As far as Hialliburton goes, many of the contracts they received were for delivering food, war materials, and even the mail - perhaps there are other organizations more adept at delivering these things, and other companies should have been part of the bidding process.
M
How many WMD's would make you happy? One shell? A truck load? 100 Billion Tons?
Fact is, we have found WMD's in Iraq. The latest example that I can think of was a Sarin gas artillery shell found because someone thought it was a conventional device and tried to make a road side bomb out of it. If there is one, there are thousands.
Next, the war was not just about WMD's. You say there is no Al Qaeda connection? Who do you think is cutting heads off over there? If there was no connection, then why is Al Qaeda so pissed off? Why do they want us out so badly? Besides, every car bomb that goes off over there is one that does not go off in your home town! We've got the majority of those bastards in one place.
North Korea has China, South Korea, and Japan asking us to take our time. We do so out of a respect for our allies, S. Korea and Japan, and because we really don't want to fight China right now. There is no point in turning the whole region into a blood bath. Trust me, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, and Turkey WANTED us to invade Iraq. Would you want Saddam living next door to you?
Finally, Saddam was a tyrant. He tried to kill a former US President. Russia had intelligence that Iraq was planning an attack on US soil. EVERYONE thought there were stockpiles of WMD's there (not just the US... and there probably still is). Saddam and his terror twins were very very bad people who, given the chance (like Missiles from N Korea) would love nothing more than turning London, Tel Aviv, NY, LA, Chicago or Paris into a smoking ash heap.
So, where's the credibility? GWB's oozing it. He did what he knew was best for the country and the world and does not care if he has to pay a political price for it. GWB is going to do what he knows is right... period. That's integrity. THAT's his credibility!
Micheal "Jabba the" Moore puts his own hatred of Bush over the well being of the country. John Kerry puts his own lust for power over the good of the country. Where is the credibility there?
And yes, his two votes? If nothing else will be his and mine. He's got my vote because of his credibility, not in spite of it!
ArcherB
Or you could end up being spat upon and beaten up by the Goon Squads outside the theatres.
Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
Oh, I think Ray is aware of this... I Sing The Body Electric was the exact title of a Walt Whitman poem before he appropriated it for his story.
Off the top of my head, Something Wicked This Way Comes is a Shakespeare quote, while The Golden Apples Of The Sun is a Yeats quote.
I'm sure there are others, but that should suffice to show that Bradbury knows damn well that it's permissible to reference another's work in a title.
The U.S.'s own weapons inspectors don't agree with you and insisted that not only could no WMD be found, but that all evidence indicated that no WMD had existed in the first place. Our weapons inspectors are highly trained professionals, quite capable of detecting the traces of WMD storage, their means of production, and evidence of the presence of materials required to support weapons programs in general. The inspectors also enjoyed the benefits of an impending threat of U.S. military action should any doors be closed to them. If you are also a trained weapons inspector with similar resources and access to Iraq, or if you have an informed analysis to offer on the weapons inspectors' findings, I would be interested to hear what you have to say on the matter. However, I suspect you are not an expert on the logistical intricacies of producing and transporting WMD while "hiding" their chemical, biological or radioactive indicators "somewhere in the desert", so I'll stick with the official conclusions if you don't mind.
You refer to the actions of a "Head of State", meaning Saddam Hussein, as justification for the war on Iraq. Specifically, which actions are you talking about? Any and all claims made by the Bush administration that Iraq posed a threat (immediate or otherwise) to the United States have been thoroughly debunked by subsequent uncovering and investigation of the facts. There were no WMD. There were no significant Iraqi ties to Al-Queda (Our "friend" Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, not only tolerates their presence but promotes their extreme religious views in the national education system and refuses to disrupt their funding). If there remains any justifaction for spending further U.S. blood and treasure on this tragic misadventure, please let me in on the secret. I would like to believe that our boys (one of whom is my recently enlisted nephew) are not dying in vain.
Regarding the nature of documentaries: Moore's films are unusual in the sense that, unlike many documentaries, they are mostly outright position pieces. However, that fact does not weaken nor even speak to the content of the film. The term "documentary", as a film genre, means nothing more than "non-fiction", as opposed to fiction or drama. After all, people refer to Errol Morris' films as documentaries without being challenged on that choice of label. Yet Morris' films are hardly of the classic, journalistic, "objective" style. In fact, he employs many of the same cinematic techniques used in main-stream Hollywood pictures but, because his subjects are real people and events rather than actors and fictional screenplays, the result is easily accepted as "documentary", just as Moore's films are. To call something "propoganda" (not that you used the term, this is merely a "preemptive strike", you understand), you have to address its content and show it be in large part untrue. If you can provide some kind of precedent or professional opinion which supports your narrow definition of "documentary" as a work that must provide a counterpoint in addition to a point, I invite you to do so.
You link to an article on typepad.com which claims that John Kerry lied to get one of his three Purple Hearts and that some of his old "buddies" from Vietnam, the Swift Boat Vets for Truth think he's unfit to be President. The SBVFT was formed in May, 2004 and "leadership and guidance were provided by Republican activists and presidential friends from Texas -- notably Houston attorney John E. O'Neill and corporate media consultant Merrie Spaeth", according to Joe Conason of Salon.com. Dr. Louis Letson is the sole source for the Purple Heart story, but he was not the attending physician for the wound in question, according to the Navy's medical records. These are the only sources mentioned in the typepad.com article and both have been thoroughly discredited.
seen on TV or presented in Canadian (opinionated, spin-doctoring, discontent-formenting) media.
Ahem, Well really. Is that so? According to Reporters without Borders Canada has one of the most free presses in the world.
The Canadian Broadcasting Company being one of the main reasons -- it is able to present a forum for journalists to work...
The Bias or "spindoctoring" you percieve is probably in relation to YOUR preconcieved notions.
>If Moore was really so anxious about telling the truth (as he wants us to believe), I would like to see his take on the military prowress of Kerry, especially as it relates to Iraq.
maybe he was constrained by the truth after all:
Service Mettle
seams to debunk your link.
No, they pay about 50% of Federal income tax, which, IIRC, is now about half of Federal individual tax revenue. They pay a trivial percentage of payroll taxes, roughly the other half.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
Moore canceled when O'Reilly walked out of a F9/11 screening. He figured if O'Reilly wasn't mature enough to sit through it, he didn't want to bother with him.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
How about this interview with David Kay or this overview of his final report or CNN's coverage, or this detailed report that discusses some of the reasoning behind David Kay's findings. I would have gladly linked to Fox News as well, as these official findings are virtually "unspinnable", but I can't find any Fox News coverage of Kay's final report (it may exist, I'm just saying I couldn't find it with Google - please point it out if you come across it). If you'll recall, Kay's initial, interim report also found no evidence of the type of WMD stockpiles or activities that Bush and Powell claimed we would certainly find in Iraq. However, Kay expressed great optimism that the alleged WMD would indeed be found (this was well covered and emphasized on Fox News) and attributed his lack of evidence to, in essence, timing, as there was still much work ahead at that point. Kay later stated that his initial optimism was based on the same erroneous, disproven "intelligence" that was eventually presented as justification for the invasion of Iraq. David Kay was not the only weapons inspector to carry out the task of finding Iraqi WMD. Remember Hans Blix? I've heard quite a bit of typical, hateful, conservative vitriol spewed in his direction, but I have yet to hear a factual criticism of his professional credentials or a substantive accusation of bias against him. Here is a summary of his findings within the rather enlightening context of current events. There are also the findings of Scott Ritter to consider. Even more despised than Hans Blix, the factual content of his work in Iraq and, again, his professional credentials, have not been effectively challenged. Here is an article he wrote in which he mentions his findings on Iraqi WMD among other topics and an interview in Time magazine in which they ask him some of the "tough" questions (i.e. weak and unsupported personal attacks, as is the Republican habit) his critics have raised. If you want more detailed sources on the findings of any of these weapons inspectors, Google is your friend. I challenge - no, I *defy* you to produce even one credible source (judging from your comment about Fox News, I think we more or less agree on the meaning of "credible") that contradicts the findings of these weapons inspectors. If you can't produce such a counterpoint, you are left with no rational conclusion but to accept that the Bush administration either incompetently or willfully misled the American people and the entire world by claiming that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States when, in fact, he literally had no capability to attack us.
More people die in the US from Car Accidents EVERY DAY than have died as a result of the entire conflict in Iraq.
According to the US Transportation Department there was an average of 118 fatalities per day, on US roads during 2003.
There have been 972 coalition deaths, 854 Americans, 60 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, one Dutch, one Estonian, one Hungarian, 18 Italians, one Latvian, six Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and six Ukrainians, in the war in Iraq as of June 28, 2004
The Coalition forces do not count Iraqi deaths, but reports in the media have totalled somewhere between 9,436 and 11,317 (it can be difficult to spot dupes). It is likely that many or most Iraqi deaths are never reported.
If 10,000 people were dying on the US roads every day, they would be so piled with bodies it would be impossible to drive anywhere. Aircraft really would be the safest way to travel. At 3.65 million fatalities per year the US road network would outperform lesser killers like Hitler and Stalin, and without massive immigration the US would run of people within 80 years.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as