Michael Moore Seeks TV Airing of Fahrenheit 9/11

telstar writes "According to Michael Moore's website, he plans to forgoe the nomination for Best Documentary in an effort to get his highly controversial movie Farenheit 9/11 on television. Despite having no assurances from the home video distributor, Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections ... suggesting the eve of the elections as a potential air date. Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

Comments

questions have been raised

[dirvish]

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

Re:questions have been raised

[Amorpheus_MMS]

Opinions, not answers. I'd like to see the source of his 'information.'

If you had RTFL you'd have seen every paragraph has the source cited, with links to webpages where available.

Re:questions have been raised

[rd_syringe]

Actually, there were several things that weren't facts. The Pantagraph "retyping" comes to mind (where he took some yahoo's random letter to the editor from the opinion page of the Pantagraph, retyped it to make it look like a front page headline, then flashed it on screen as he narrated...even changing the date a little so it would be hard to locate the original issue).

Let's just say that your standard college journalism class would flunk Michael Moore for his misleading tactics. He hurts the left more than he does the right.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

Wait... is the best thing that you can come up with the fact that they got the date on an article wrong and changed the font? Seriously? That's poor copyediting, the sort of thing done by a low-pay graphics guy. Is a copyediting error the best thing you can come up with? Seriously? Do you think Moore was behind the scenes, going, "Despite all of these headlines out there reporting that Gore won the election, I want you to take a letter to the editor instead and make it look like a headline, and tweak its date!" ?

----
Although offering no apology, the letter from Chatillon, who represents Westside Productions, which produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," did admit the date of The Pantagraph page flashed in the movie "was unfortunately off by a couple weeks." But the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point ... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph.)"
----

Besides, what was stated was completely true - Gore won the recount in the vast majority of counting methods (in fact, pretty much every one that Gore himself didn't request, including the one that was going to go through statewide had the US Supreme Court respected states rights and not stepped in).

Re:questions have been raised

[ackthpt]

Or, for instance, if you call thousands of voters in South Carolina, and ask them how they'd feel if they were to find out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child, that implies that he does. Not false, but deceptive. But, gee, wonder what the intent was. That would be to deceive the voting public.

I've wondered why nobody has pursued Bush's illegitimate and aborted child the same way they have the TANG stuff. What I've read of it was he had a former girlfriend pregnant and the child was quietly aborted and suddenly nobody has any information on it and the former girlfriend refused to discuss it. I understand issues of privacy, but politics in the past have done little to ensure protection of individuals when the stakes are high.

Re:questions have been raised

[Burpmaster]

And you imply that this 877 number existed when the movie was made. A quick search for the number you gave found this link. A check on archive.org found that page was first archived on July 6, 2004, almost two weeks after Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in theaters.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

Everything there has already been debunked in the War Room. If you want to discuss specifics with me, don't just post a link, post a particular. If not, every time you point me to that site, I'll point you to the War Room.

Re:questions have been raised

[TamMan2000]

and F (John F Kerry) is for FLIP FLOP .

The Bush MO is to attack his opponant for his weakness (attacking both Kerry and McCain over Vietnam...)

Calling Kerry a Flip Flopper is another example of this.

read this site, it has 30 eaxamples of MAJOR flip flops from bush and his administration.

If you think that changing ones position is a bad thing, I suggest you rethink (yes I am assuming you support him) supporting GWB.

The site also fails to list my personal favorite:
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'" - George W. Bush

Re:questions have been raised

[Burpmaster]

Additional info: I found this article, which mentions specifically that the number was created afterwards:

"Fahrenheit 911" continues to make news:

The Gallup Poll reports only 38 percent of movie goers have a favorable impression of the controversial, anti-Bush film by Michael Moore, based on what they have heard and read about it. Republicans hate it by a six-to-one margin, while Democrats applaud it, four-to-one.

One scene in the propaganda-documentary that always draws chuckles from viewers features Florida GOP Rep. Porter Goss inviting people to call a "toll-free number" to voice their concerns about the Patriot Act. But the flick notes that no such number existed at the time and offered Goss' office number in its stead.

There is one now -- 1-877-858-9040 -- on the Web site of the House intelligence committee, which Goss chairs. A spokeswoman wouldn't say whether the deluge of calls to her boss' office contributed to the establishment of the toll-free line.

Despite its focus on GIs against the Iraq war, the Pentagon's Army and Air Force Exchange Service intends to distribute copies to U.S. bases worldwide.

Re:questions have been raised

[htmlboy]

thought it was funny when a newspaper sued Moore because they say he represented a letter to the editor as a front page headline story, and changed the date of the letter. I wonder what happened to that suit.

iirc, they sued him for $1, since that's the minimal amount they could ask. the suit was only a means to seek a formal apology, which i believe they got.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, what was stated was completely true - Gore won the recount in the vast majority of counting methods

Actually, this is not true. The fact is that Gore did not win the state in any of the recounts. And when the media did their own recount, Bush won using every recount standard except for the one that his lawyers were arguing should be used if a recount was to take place.

US Supreme Court respected states rights and not stepped in

I love it when people try to talk about "states' rights" without understanding what it means. The idea of "states' rights" means that the federal government should not interfere with the rights that the states hold under the Constitution. It also means that states should not exceed their rights and try to interfere with the government's rights. States do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and infringe upon the powers explicitly granted to the federal government.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution states (emphasis added)

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

And Congress did pass a law several years ago requiring that any disputes over the election of delegates to the Electorial College must be resolved under the laws that were in place on the day of the election. These means that the attempts of the Florida courts to change and create new law (by changing deadlines and creating a statewide recount) to help Gore were a violation of that federal law.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizens equal protection under the law, yet the Florida Supreme Court's final ruling created a situation where a voter's ballot could be counted differently depending on what county he voted in. This would hardly be equal treatment. When that ruling was issued, even the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court said that the ruling would not survive a test of its Constitutionality and by a 7-2 ruling, the US Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional (yes it was a 7-2 vote, the 5-4 ruling was only about what remedy should be ordered)

Any claim by Moore that Gore won Florida is best described by Shakesphere's words -

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Re:questions have been raised

[aixou]

I disagree. Now, point to specifics, or this debate is going to go nowhere fast.

Some of Moore's implications are technically fair, but deceptive nonetheless (similar to when Bush would mince 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in a speech, so careless listeners would associate the two)

I'll be quick. The details are on Kopel's page.

* Implying that Fox somehow had the ability to change all the other Networks stance on who won Florida, when this was not the case at all.

*Implying that a member of the Bush admin hired a company to turn away African American voters at the polls.

*Implying that Gore won the election no matter what. If the recount method Gore request had been allowed to finish, Bush would've won.

*Implying that Bush vacationed 42 percent of the time in his first six months, with the implication that Bush can't do work away from the whitehouse (slashdotters should know the ease with which offlocation work can be done)

*Implying that Bush didn't read the briefing mentioning the potential terrorist threat.

*Implying that there were no flights allowed in the air when the saudis left the country.

*Implying that the Bin Ladens weren't at all questioned before leaving the air.

Anyway, that's just the tip of the iceberg

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

> Actually, this is not true.

Actually, it is true. Summing up the myths:

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/ op inion/3973122.htm?template=contentModules/printsto ry.jsp

"Question: Who actually received the most votes in Florida's 2000 presidential election?

Answer: Al Gore. State election officials ultimately declared George W. Bush the winner by a margin of 537 votes, but during and after the election dispute, questions remained about the uncounted ballots of 175,010 voters, ballots that had been rejected by error-prone tabulating machines employed in many Florida counties. Confusion and conflict, much of it generated by partisan intrigue, prevented these ballots from being counted during the election controversy. However, in 2001 every uncounted ballot was carefully examined in a scientific study by the University of Chicago, which concluded that when all the votes were counted, more votes had been cast for Gore than for Bush.

Q: Why did some earlier post-election studies say just the opposite, that is, that Bush had actually won after all?

A: They did not really say this. They reported, instead, that Bush might have kept his lead if the manual recounts of machine-rejected ballots had been completed along the lines either requested by Gore or initially mandated by the Florida Supreme Court. In these recount scenarios, not all of the machine-rejected ballots would have been included. However, just before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, the judge overseeing the final statewide recount was preparing to announce that the recount would cover all of the previously uncounted ballots."

Furthermore:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html

(the referenced Newsweek article is already in the archives, but I can probably dig it up for you if you want). The judge presiding over statewide recounts ordered overvotes to be counted - one of the several situations in which Gore would have won. Bush only would have won in the recounts that Gore requested.

> States do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and infringe upon the powers explicitly granted to the federal government.

You just quoted the constitution which completely backs up what Florida was doing - *THE STATE* makes the laws about how the elections are conducted, and the ultimate arbiter of *FLORIDA LAW* is the Florida Supreme court (the US supreme court can only decide if a florida law violates the US constitution). Apparently you're unfamiliar with the logic that the US supreme court used in their 5-4 decision - they actually claimed that because there was no way to guarantee "equal protection", you can't have a recount. Furthermore, they made this a non-precidental ruling, because it would trash states rights if they didn't.

And the decision *Was* 5-4. You're confusing your decisions. The 7-2 was a per curiam - or "unsigned" - statement that there were "constitutional problems". It was a rather mild statement, however, and focused mainly on the fact that it would have been hard, if not impossible, to complete them by the date required. The 5-4 was the actual vote on the case.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

1) Implying that Fox....

If one news station calls an election, the others follow that call. Call them lemmings, but no news station wants to be the last to call an election. I was watching CNN at the time, and was watching the florida count numbers coming in, was aware that it was incredibly obvious that Gore could still carry the state (and not even that difficult), and then had my jaw drop when I heard them say something to the effect of... "wait, we're getting the news that Florida has been called for Bush..."

2) Implying that a member of the Bush admin hired a company to turn away African American voters at the polls.

Please, then - offer your explanation of why the "Felon Purge List" had over 20,000 African Americans, but less than 50 hispanics (I assume you're talking about Database Technologies and the purge list).

3) Implying that Gore won the election no matter what.

In the method that the State supreme court had ordered, Gore indeed would have won, based on a University of Chicago study. The only case Bush would have won was the one Gore requested, or no recount - but that was not what the State supreme court ordered.

4a) Implying that Bush vacationed 42 percent of the time in his first six months

That is completely true.

4b) With the implication that Bush can't do work away from the White House.

Of course he *can* do work. And I'm sure he's so much more effective without all those "relevant people" around him. Crawford, Texas, is so much more accessable for meetings than DC. I'm sure all of the brush-cutting photos, horseback riding, and talk about having fun was just a media ploy. (/sarcasm)

One thing that sickened me, later, and unrelated to Moore, was watching Bush talk about killing in Iraq (shortly before the war began), while smiling and playing golf - actually answering a reporter's question in the middle of a swing. How sick...

5) Implying that Bush didn't read the briefing ...

A) Tenet couldn't have given oral testimony about the PDB, as was implied, because A) Tenet was not in Texas that day, and B) Tenet testified that he did not speak to Bush during all of August: http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/

B) Neither did Condi: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A111 15-2004Apr14.html

C) And, based on a white house press briefing, it appears that Bush didn't read it himself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/ 20 040410-6.html

Watch the administration official dance around the question as to whether Bush ever read it, it's quite amusing.

6) Implying that there were no flights allowed in the air when the saudis left the country

Here's a couple examples:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_n ow _verifies_flig.shtml
http://www.iht.com/articles/ 531487.html

7) Implying that the Bin Ladens weren't at all questioned before leaving the air.

Please, back up that they were.

Re:questions have been raised

[Procrastin8er]

If there was a "legitimate" challenge to the Florida results, the Dems, along with the main stream liberal media, would have been screaming bloody murder the second it was discovered. Even NYT's, after six months of "digging" couldn't find any credible evidence.

Re:questions have been raised

[ppp]

The first TV announcement declaring Gore the winner in Florida was broadcast TEN MINUTES before the poles closed in the Florida panhandle region. If voter turnout actually was low there, I doubt that was the reason.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that sickened me, later, and unrelated to Moore, was watching Bush talk about killing in Iraq (shortly before the war began), while smiling and playing golf - actually answering a reporter's question in the middle of a swing. How sick...

While I don't support Bush, that's an example of Moore misleading. The reference was to terrorists in Israel, not Iraq.

Re:questions have been raised

[Kent Simon]

That was my post w/ the geographic map. I couldn't log in for some reason..

My only point is this. People often diminish the importance of these other states. Especially those from New York and California. I often get the impression more that Californians (especially) think less about people from rural areas.

that map shows 20 states voted for gore and 30 voted for Bush. But people sometiems forget a great chunk of our population lives in NewYork and California.

If you do some research into how the electoral college works, it is precisely to protect these smaller populated rural states. A strictly popular vote could potentially be hazardous to the longevity and more specifically the wealth of these states.

Anyways, even disregarding that, people seem to act like this is the only incident where this has happened. Which is completely not true

FOUR PRESIDENTS won the presidency but lost the popular vote: Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford G. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000).

Re:questions have been raised

[neurojab]

>plus 1000 dead war

Correction: 1000 U.S. citizens have died. The number of Iraqi civillians is over 11,000 by LOW estimates. If you add in Iraqi soldiers, and you've got a total body count around 17,000, again, by low estimates.

Faren-hype 9/11

[FooAtWFU]

You've got questions? Moore has deceptions. This guy counts 59.

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[dirvish]

Actually, the answer is in the article:

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).

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[bios10h]

From oscars.org:

No television or internet transmission shall occur at any time prior to, or within the nine months following, the first day of the qualifying exhibition, and not before completing the minimum four-city two-day theatrical runs. Any documentary which is transmitted anywhere in the world in any version as a television or internet program within this period will automatically be disqualified from award eligibility.

http://www.oscars.org/77academyawards/rules/rule12 .html

Re:McCain-Feingold

[ImaLamer]

I'm not sure about McCain-Feingold but I do know that the reason you don't see any more commercials for the movie is because it violates laws about commercials featuring candidates. (Being that it's a for-profit venture, as opposed to "527's")

I agree with that view somewhat, and so does Moore from what I understand... but the movie (in DVD/DVD-R) form has already hit the Internet's piracy sites (NFO file) and plenty of people are already got it. Moore has stated that he doesn't care about the money when it comes to this movie so 'piracy' is welcome in his eyes

I've got my copy but handing it out would be like preaching to the choir...

Thing is... who would air the film? I'm sure that advertising revenue will make it attractive but I don't think stations will risk the tax break suicide if Bush does get re-elected.

Presidents don't make jobs?

[TrentL]

Bush would disagree. He has run up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt (trillions in the long term) claiming his tax cuts would add jobs. Hasn't happened (they claimed we'd be adding 300,000 a month at this point. Um, no.)

The president also thought he could save jobs by using steel tariffs and lumber tariffs (this from a "free trade" president). Didn't work. Bush flip-flopped and dropped the steel tariffs after nearly setting off a trade war.

Re:Moore

[revscat]

He knowingly makes false statements and claims them to be fact. He also distorts what others say by making up invalid contexts for actual statements people make.

Where?

This allegation is made all the freaking time, and usually by people who haven't seen the movie and get their marching orders from the government propaganda channels on the AM band. So tell me -- in your own words, please -- where in F9/11 did Moore do what you accuse? Example: Moore claims that Bush sent only 11,000 troops to Afghanistan, less than the number of cops in Manhattan. Is this true or false? Or perhaps you're disputing the claim that Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban to get them to perform 9/11. *Cough* I mean to stop growing opium.

Re:FCC should allow it

[ImaLamer]

Two CNN commentators just joind the Kerry campaign, and they are still doing there shows on CNN

But... do they cover Kerry? Fox's man covering Bush in 2000 had family (his wife) in the Bush campaign. How could he be objective?

In 2000 a CNN anchor started to work for Gore and they removed him from all Gore stories because of the appearance of impropriety.

Read the script of Outfoxed, see page 73 I believe.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Eslyjah]

Have you really thought that out? Scalia makes a pretty powerful case, IMO, that money is sometimes speech. Perhaps you should read his dissent.

That's the name of the game

[Tairnyn]

"one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

Just like telling voters that voting for Kerry will be the prelude to another serious terror attack. Almost sounds like a threat to me.

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

an interesting look at the movie: http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

Looks at what Moore says and how he misleads the viewer by omitting facts or spinning them a certain way. Follow the link for a trailer of the movie re-editted with facts inserted.

Re:My question:

[danheskett]

Can you guarantee that?

FOX is in it for one reason: money. The major networks + CNN, et all have been very critical of conservative causes. It's only a matter of time until someone with conservative ideas and money comes along and grabs that market and its money.

FOX does what is necessary to get money. For example, the FOX network airs shows that are very racy, and basically offensive to conservative values. Why? It's profitable. Compared to FOX, ABC/CBS/NBC are uber-conservative in the shows they air.

Happened In Sweden

[pt99par]

A documentary with similar characteristics was aired in sweden just before election. It was indirectly attacking the conservative party by showing local leaders of the party beeing provoced to say rasistic stuff.. It affected the actual result of the voting if you look at statistics prior to the airing of the documentary.. I would rather have the US voting carrey for president but it would be unfair to show souch propaganda before the election. Even if there is an escence of trouth in the documentary it is presented in souch a way that it makes bush look like he is worse than hitler. Way cant jounalist make documentaries without presenting them like a propaganda from the cold war...

Re:Hurting the process?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Coupled with this arrogant bastard's repeated ability to ignore his military's and CIA's and other nation's intelligence reports in favor of his own fscking agenda (basically "we need to eliminate SH from Iraq to stabilize the region") The decision that this moron needs to go was firmly cemented. "

Maybe you were unaware that the intelligense reports from the CIA is exactly what Bush acted on. Perhaps you didnt read the comission report placing the blame on the CIA? Or maybe you were unaware that Clinton was also told the same intelligense and acted on it as well.

"Cheney Speaks to the Reptile Brain"

[ImaLamer]

When it comes to influencing the vote with emotions Bush and Cheney take the cake.

A good article on this same subject is Cheney Speaks to the Reptile Brain by Thom Hartmann.

It of course applies to all candidates but is very harmful when even mentioning 9/11. Remember when Mike Tyson took a chunk out of Holyfield's ear? Well, later Tyson said that the head-butting and bad calls made him remember another time that it had happened and he snapped. It's called an "Amygdala Hijacking", a phrase I believe coined by Daniel Goleman.

You develop emotional responses by experience. Now that we've all gone through 9/11 every time it's mentioned we become overwhelmed with the same emotions that we experienced at that time. That is why it was mentioned during the Republican National Convention so much (*).

Good articles on the subject:

How the neuroscience revolution can change your practice.
and...
Emotional Intelligence - Stop Amygdala Hijackings

(*) Notice "Osama" was not mentioned once.

Re:FCC should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

James Carville and Paul Begala

So, the two "from the left" voices on crossfire are voting democratic? Surprised? In other news, Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak (the "from the right" voices on crossfire) will not be voting for Kerry.

This doesn' t compare to Fox, where the "reporter" assigned to cover Bush was married to a Bush campaigner. Moore is a twit, but that doesn't make Fox anything resembling fair and balanced. Fox is the RNC spin machine, which is fine as long as you know what you're getting. Just don't insult everyone's intelligence by complaining that the Fox right-wing bias is comparable to the other network's left-wing bias. It isn't.

Re:Good!

[Planesdragon]

Democracy is an unstable form of government. That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea.

Au contrair. Democracy is the best form of government. The problem is that any sizeable form of government either becomes ineffective (a'la the Articles of Confederation) or too tyrannical (a'la King George.)

The Founding Fathers created a Federalist System in which the basic democracy of the people was minimally compromised but the larger government--the "alliance of democracies"--was both effective against threats to liberty and segregated enough to not be itself such a threat.

The "bad idea" isn't a move to Democracy, it's a move AWAY from democracy caused largely by the breakdown of the basic community-unit.

As to your last point--the Constitution, while it contained limits on power, was not by design necessarily limited. It was known that power would creep regardless of the form of government, and as such the necessary process was to divide the power as much as possible.

Considering that the SCOTUS just checked the President's treatment of foreign prisoners, and the POTUS has had to get Congressional approval at regular intervals in the War on Terror, we're hardly ignoring the Constitution.

Re:Good!

[Rei]

Yeah, because we all know that all of the money is in the hands of those plutocratic democrats ;)

Seriously, are you aware of how many conservative think tanks there are out there constantly sending reps to the news? Dems *really* need to catch up with this, it has allowed Republicans to keep TV anchors repeating their talking points.

People:

http://www.mediatransparency.com/all_people_public .php

Recipients:

http://www.mediatransparency.com/recipients.php

Funders:

http://www.mediatransparency.com/funders.php

Re:Moore

[OldSchoolNapster]

If F/911 can be said to be not a documentary it is because he doesn't actually really document anything. It's just him talking over CNN and fox news footage for two hours.

F/911 is in large part about CNN and Fox news. He argues that the people were intentionally lied to by the Bush administration reguarding Iraq and 911. The neoconservatives' used the "news" channels (CNN is now "news" though not as bad as Fox) to fool the nation (or part of it ;).

More than 50% of Americans believe Iraq was involved in 911 (and WMD) due to a televised misinformation campaign by the Bush administration. The Bush administration's official ass-saving line is that there was no link. Now Bush can cover his own ass (to people dumb enough to believe him) by saying that he never said that Iraq did 911. He didn't have to use those words himself, but simply get the "news" channels to do it for him. I think the "news" channels deserve their prominant place in F/911

Personally, I thought Moore's movie was good though at times emotionally over the top. I just got Outfoxed: Rupert Murdock's War on Journalism off netflix. It is a documentary mostly composed of clips from Fox News Channel with additional commentary by former FNC employees detailing how the Republican talking points got a 24 hour "news" channel. Outfoxed is a more traditional documentary than F/911 and I think more effective at proving its point.

Re:questions have been answered

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, no. Goss set up the 877 number *after the movie was released*. Take a look at this house transcript from July (PDF, sorry) in which Goss states:

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which I am the chairman of, regularly conducts oversight, and it has proven to be effective and reliable. To that end I have frequently described the Intelligence Committee when I make public speeches, which I do frequently, as the metaphorical 1-800 number for anybody who has concerns about abuses under the PATRIOT Act or any intelligence-related activities. The number to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been and continues to be publicly listed and available to anybody who wants to call from around the world. If you have experienced a specific problem with the PATRIOT Act, you can now call us at our toll-free number. It only costs the taxpayers. The number is 1-877-858-9040.

Note that he said that 1-800 was a metaphor he was using to describe the committee. Note that he says that a number *has been and continues to be* published to contact them, but doesn't specifically say which one it was. Note that he says that taxpayers can *now* call the 877 number.

This isn't about Goss saying 1-800 when he meant 1-877. When Goss made the 1-800 comment, and at the time Fahrenheit 911 was released, there was not a free number to call Goss' committee about the PATRIOT Act.

I dare you to find a reference to, or any published material indicating that 877 number was in place before June 25th, the day Fahrenheit 911 hit theaters. Moore would be lying if he said it today, but when the movie was released, it was factual both in semantics and in spirit.

If you don't want to see it on the front page..

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't you filter out the politics section and quit your whining?

It's up to the editors what appears on the front page. Taking your comment farther: Why even bother having a front page? Just make links to the various sections and have everyone go look at the sections they want.

What? You want control over what appears on the front page? Then get a job at OSDN where you can control it.
Otherwise, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND QUIT WHINING!

That's because the first attacker wins

[roystgnr]

John Kerry voted for one version of an appropriations bill for Gulf War II, and voted against another. George W. Bush threatened to veto one version of the appropriations bill, and signed another. Because the Bush campaign was the first to figure out how to work half of these facts into a soundbyte, now Kerry is a "flip-flopper" in the public eye.

The success of negative campaigning isn't just the public's fault, either; it's partly because both candidates this time really do suck. I know that for a lot of voters the answers to "Do you want George W. Bush as your president?" and "Do you want John Kerry as your president?" are the same: no! IMHO the Bush campaign is doing a good job keeping the latter question in people's minds, and it's going to win him the election.

Re:That's a laugh

[artemis67]

So what, Rush is dating Kagan. That doesn't make her a conservative any more than marrying James Carville made Mary Matalin a liberal. When the Washington Post reported on the story, they described Kagan as "part of the liberal media axis and a feminist -- but, then again, opposites attract."

And Pat Buchannan, who worked at CNN, casts Judy Woodruff as a liberal.

Re:bite me asshat.

[CaptRespect]

"no links found to al-Qaeda and no WMDs"

Actually the 9/11 commission did conclude that there were links to al-Qaeda (just not to the 9/11 attacks). And they did find that sarin gas bomb that had about a gallon of sarin gas.

Re:Hurting the process?

[tigeba]

Here I am with the 'haves' [dramatic pause] and the 'have mores'. Some call you the elite [dramatic pause] I call you 'My Base'

This is a perfect example of the benefit of doing a little simple research and thinking, instead of absorbing information served to you. Based on watching the film, you were probably under the impression that Bush delivered this line at some sort of secret fund raising dinner, rallying the his vast right-wing army. In fact, this occured at the Al Smith dinner, which is a charity dinner that traditionally hosts presidental candidates, and of course the candidates are encouraged to make self depricating remarks. You would probably be surprised to know that the other guest of honor that evening was Al Gore, who I believe re-stated his claim that he invented the internet (as well as virtually every invention of the 20th century) as well as some other gems about keeping various types of produce safe in his fridge.

You can find a brief blurb here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/politi cs /main242210.shtml

Feel free to draw your own conclusions about who is telling the "truth". And remember all facts are always true :)

Re:You have to WONDER?

[wrecked]

I think that your definition of propaganda is the most insightful one I've seen on this site. However (and this will seem far-left nutty to most slashdotters), I think Moore's film serves as propaganda in a subversive way to actually reinforce certain memes that are peculiar to the U.S. and generally serve the elite class.

As with Al Franken's Lying Liars book, F9/11 does not question the moral validity of attacking Afghanistan following 9/11. In fact, just like Franken, Moore criticizes Bush Jr. for not doing enough on Afghanistan. Leaving aside the merits of this military intervention, what Moore (and Franken) essentially do is limit the debate so that the Afghan invasion is taken for granted as being justified.

Also, Moore and Franken are not inherently against the invasion of Iraq; they criticize Bush Jr. for doing it unilaterally and with a false pretext. However, neither really debate whether an invasion could ever be justified, even if the invasion had U.N. backing or if biological/chemical weapons had been found.

Noam Chomsky has said that political debate in the U.S. is confined to polarized expressions contained within a narrow spectrum of ideas. For example, on the bellweather issue of same-sex marriage, it's kind of funny that both the Bush and Kerry tickets are against it; Kerry-Edward's position that they would support civil unions is basically the same position taken by the Conservatives here in Canada, a position that the electorate found too right-wing.

I actually found Franken's book to be surprisingly right-wing, even though it was funny and entertaining. Similarly, Moore's film, while entertaining, misguidedly blamed the Iraq fiasco entirely on Bush Jr's incompetence, even while it was reinforcing U.S. notions of patriotism and duty to the military. Missing from Moore's film was any context on how Bush Jr's invasion was a continuation of questionable U.S. foreign policy in Iraq during the 1990's under both Bush Sr. and Clinton. And missing from this entire debate is whether Kerry will do anything differently, or merely continue American imperialism albeit under a kinder, gentler guise (note that even Chomsky is saying vote Kerry, just to get Bush Jr. out).

Don't vote for somebody that supports the war

[JohnnyX]

If you oppose the Iraq war, don't vote for someone who supported and continues to support it.

We know Bush supports it.

We also know that Kerry supports it. In the Washington Post article, In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War, Kerry makes it abundantly clear that he is not an anti-war candidate.

"Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction."

Michael Badnarik is the only national anti-war candidate. Don't waste your vote on one of those two other guys.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...keeping it real...

Re:Don't vote for somebody that supports the war

[Anonymous Coward]

David Cobb, the Green Party candidate, is also anti-war. As are many third parties such as the Constitution and Reform parties. If you oppose the Iraq war, there are still many options open to you. Just not the Democrats or Republicans.

Obviousman to the rescue!

[Theaetetus]

Or maybe you were talking about the Kerry who voted for invading Iraq before he voted against it?

Now, let's put that quote back in context... Originally, a bill was proposed seeking $87 billion in funding to support the war in Iraq, to be paid for by repealing the Bush tax cut. Kerry voted for it. Bush refused to sign that bill, and instead had a Republican senator propose an identical $87 billion dollar bill for funding to be paid for by increasing the deficit. John Kerry, among others, believe that you don't just run up your credit cards willy-nilly without figuring some way to pay them, and voted against that bill.

Does this mean Kerry doesn't support the troops? Nope - in fact, Bush was the one who sent them off to war improperly funded and supplied (remember all the APCs and Humvees that didn't have armor?). Kerry does support the troops. He also supports not running up trillion dollar deficits while keeping a tax cut that gives middle-class and below families less than $300 each, while upper-class people get hundreds of times that.

-T

Parent is correct

[RubberChainsaw]

This is absolutely correct. The newspaper's suit was a public request for apology, not an actual suit. The suit was for exactly 1 dollar.

Illinois new coverage
Patriots for Bush.com blurb

However, Michael Moore did not wish to publicly apologize for the date mistake at the time. His production company later did admit the mistake in a letter to the newspaper.

The Pantagraph own coverage.

I was not able to find out what became of the suit, though.

Re:Michael Moore

[Morganth]

...comparing him to Hitler...

This is one of those myths that has been busted time and time again, but thick-headed conservatives nonetheless spew the lies and thus perpetuate them.

To make the myth more concrete, conservatives believe MoveOn.org, a 527 group clearly connected in some way with the Democratic party (yes, this is itself wrong, but talk to your Congressman about Campaign Finance Reform if you want something to be done about it) ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Here's what really happened--here's the background the soundbite-obsessed Fox News anchors can't dig into because they aren't real journalists.

MoveOn.org ran a content called Bush in 30 Seconds. It was a content that allows ANYONE to submit an ad to MoveOn.org, and the ads would be showcased on the website while voting took place. The ad with the most votes would be aired by MoveOn.org.

Two of the OVER 1,500 ads compared Bush to Hitler. You can see these two ads here and here.

Now, in case we are forgetting, let me remind you of the correct interpretation of the first amendment--in order for there to be freedom of speech, there has to be freedom of speech even for ideas you don't like . Sure, most people absolutely hate even the mention of Hitler, but by censoring those people who use his image or make comparisons to him, we violate the first amendment right in all cases. There are some legal exceptions (the famous "fighting words" case among others).

That said, I am just reminding you that even these two amateur filmmakers did nothing wrong within the law, which sometimes isn't clear to people who don't truly respect constitutional rights.

The bottom line, however, is that MoveOn.org never aired these ads because people never voted them to the top. So, although you can fault these two amateur filmmakers for this film, you can't fault the democratic party, "democrats" at large, or even MoveOn.org. It would be like faulting Salon.com (or "the liberal media") if on one of their Forums I posted a message that said Bush reminds me of Hitler.

Plus, I find this somewhat ridiculous because one could easily turn this around. Conservative "figureheads" have made the same kinds of comparisons in the past. Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists, and called abortion "the modern-day holocaust." This is from his published book in 1992. I am positive that most moral theorists and philosophers would find serious problems with that equivalence claim, regardless of their standpoint on abortion. Contrast this to the two ads posted on MoveOn.org, and you find one very important distinction. The ads on MoveOn.org focus on Hitler's power in using propaganda, his military force abroad and his rhetoric saying that he is driven by God. These particular aspects of Hitler's character could be argued to be found in George W. Bush. However, the comparison is unfair because it seeks emotional manipulation and deception, in that whenever someone thinks of Hitler, one thinks immediately of the holocaust and pure evil (thus, the mental connection, whatever the intention, becomes "Bush is this evil murderous leader"). But you have to admit that Limbaugh's comparison is much worse, because he effectively says that feminists are evil, murderous people, conducting their own holocaust. A clear distinction.

But, I won't fault him for that. After all, he is just one person, one viewpoint. It's his right of speech. And that means I can't say, "because Rush Limbaugh said it, it is mainstream conservati

Re:Well...

[iceperson]

Take a look here.

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

> What's wrong with FoxNews? They have pretty standard reporting

"One hundred days until Bush is reelected" from a news anchor doesn't strike me as "reporting" so much as rah-rah cheerleading. And "shut up!" very rarely qualifies as a rebuttal.

Other Documentaries on this and other subjects.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just thought I would throw out a few others I have seen lately that go along and add to Moore's movie, but with less of the flare and more of the facts. Not that anything was wrong with F911 I think Moore makes documentaries more interesting if anything. But just take them for what they are. Here are some others:

The Corporation
http://www.thecorporation.tv/
The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, the film is a timely, critical inquiry that invites CEOs, whistle-blowers, brokers, gurus, spies, players, pawns and pundits on a graphic and engaging quest to reveal the 4corporation's inner workings, curious history, controversial impacts and possible futures. Featuring illuminating interviews with Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Howard Zinn and many others, THE CORPORATION charts the spectacular rise of an institution aimed at achieving specific economic goals as it also recounts victories against this apparently invincible force.

OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Outfoxed examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know.

UnCovered : The War on Iraq
http://www.truthuncovered.com/
Chronicles the Bush Administration's determined quest to invade Iraq following the events of September 11, 2001.

UnPrcedented : The 2000 Presidential Election
http://www.unprecedented.org/
All about Florida and the truth behind the voting results and how everything happened.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL: The war on our Civil Liberties
http://www.publicinterestpictures.org/o rder.htm
(all trailers for the Un series and for Outfoxed can be seen at this above link for those interested)

Re:Get Real...

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

Let's take a look at the Persians, the Greeks, the Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, and, hell, even the USSR. These were mighty, mighty nations with incredible power, control, and influence and they all fell out of power.

I use this example all the time, if history truly repeats itself, well were next. Look at the Chinese, they are desperately trying to become a world power. They certainly have the manpower to do it.

However I believe that it isn't nations that is going to be the world powers rather that perceived power will be shifted to corporations, and this is something that really has been in progress for quite a while.

Re:bite me asshat.

[BoneFlower]

"Based on the available evidence (rather than hearsay) it most likely that the round was over a decade old. "

My personal opinion, what I would have reported to my CO if I was still an Intelligence Analyst(which I was for several years in the Marines), would have been that said shell was most likely battlefield debris left over from the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf War I. There probably are quite a few chemical and biological weapons that Iraq simply lost during the Iran-Iraq war that are still waiting for someone to randomly run across. Interesting to note, the reports shortly after it said that it was set up to optimize explosive damage, and even if it was a brand new munition, the gas would have done very little damage because of how it was set up. That shows whoever set it up thought it was an HE round.

Re:bite me asshat.

[bcboy]

Oh, and nevermind the basic fact that KERRY WAS THE ONE FULL OF SHIT.

For the historically challenged, some first-hand testimony of veterans. BTW, I've been to some grass roots Kerry events, and they are filled with Vietnam vets who say, all around, "I've been waiting 30 years to vote for this man," because he spoke to their experiences, which no one else was willing to do.

SCOTT CAMILE: "My name is Scott Camile. I was a Sgt. attached to Charley 1/1. I was a forward observer in Vietnam. I went in right after high school and I'm a student now ... The cutting off of heads -- on Operation Stone -- there was a Lt. Colonel there and two people had their heads cut off and put on stakes and stuck in the middle of the field. And we were notified that there was press covering the operation and that we couldn't do that anymore. Before we went out on the operation we were told not to waste our heat tablets on food but to save them for the villages because we were going to destroy all the villages and we didn't give the people any time to get out of the villages. We just went in and burned them and if people were in the villages yelling and screaming, we didn't help them. We just burned the houses as we went.

"MODERATOR: Why did you use the heat tabs? Did you just light off the villages with matches or just throw the heat tabs in so it would keep burning?

"CAMILE: We'd throw the heat tabs in because it was quicker and they'd keep burning. They couldn't put the heat tabs out. We'd throw them on top of the houses. People cut off ears and when they'd come back in off of an operation you'd make deals before you'd go out and like for every ear you cut off someone would buy you two beers, so people cut off ears. The torturing of prisoners was done with beatings and I saw one case where there were two prisoners. One prisoner was staked out on the ground and he was cut open while he was alive and part of his insides were cut out and they told the other prisoner if he didn't tell them what they wanted to know they would kill him. And I don't know what he said because he spoke in Vietnamese but then they killed him after that anyway."

JAMES DUFFY: "I served as a machine gunner, on a CH-47, Chinook helicopter with Company A, 228th Aviation Battalion, 1st Air Cav. Division, from February '67 to April '68.

"I iced a contingent of Vietnamese peasants chopping wood and I decided, well, if the Vietnamese can fire a round into my ship, then I can fire as many rounds into the Vietnamese as I want to.

"So I swung my machine gun onto this group of peasants and opened fire. Fortunately, the gun jammed after one or two rounds, which was pretty lucky, because this group of peasants turned out to be a work party hired by the government to clear the area and there was GIs guarding them about 50 meters away. But my mind was so psyched out into killing gooks that I never even paid attention to look around and see where I was. I just saw gooks and I wanted to kill them. I was pretty scared after that happened because that sort of violated the unwritten code that you can do anything you want to as long as you don't get caught. That's, I guess that's, what happened with the My Lai incident. Those guys just were following the same pattern that we've been doing there for 10 years, but they had the misfortune of getting caught at it.

"I looked out across the field and I spotted a Vietnamese woman peasant running away from the ship. I fired a burst of about six or seven rounds into her back before we fired, before we hit the ground. When I was being questioned as to what happened about two weeks later by a captain in my company, I told him what we did and what I did. We both had a good laugh about it. That was pretty much company policy. Also in Hue, during the Tet offensive in '68, I observed American fighters and bombers (Phantoms) dropping bombs and napalm into very crowded streets full of civilians. I don't know how many people were wiped out in that pla

Re:Propaganda

[thatguywhoiam]

No offense, but Salon is not offering the full story,

Shit, none taken - I forget sometimes that I have an account that is cookie'd.

I won't paste the whole interview out of respect for their work but I will quote liberally the section of greatest interest.. and it is pretty specific. This is from Senator Graham's interview:

Your investigation in Congress focused on a Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi, who had provided extensive assistance to two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, when they lived in San Diego. You say al-Bayoumi was apparently a covert agent of the Saudi government, and from that you conclude there was official Saudi support for the plot. Yet the independent 9/11 commission came to a different conclusion. Its executive director, Philip Zelikow, has said his investigation had more access to information than yours -- including the opportunity to interview al-Bayoumi. And the commission concluded he had nothing to do with the attacks, that his contacts with the hijackers were coincidental.

Let me say that what we know about this comes primarily from FBI and CIA reports that were in the file in San Diego. And in those files, FBI agents referred to Bayoumi as being a Saudi Arabian agent or Saudi Arabian spy. In the summer of 2002, a CIA agent filed a report that said it was "incontrovertible" that terrorists were receiving assistance, financial and otherwise, from Saudis in San Diego. No. 2: Bayoumi was supposed to be working for a firm that was a subcontractor for the Saudi civil aviation authority. Yet he never showed up for work. His boss tried to fire him, and he received a letter from the Saudi civil aviation authority demanding that he be retained on their payroll despite the fact he wasn't performing any services. And the subcontracting company that employed Bayoumi was owned by a Saudi national who, according to documents seized in Bosnia, was an early financial backer of al-Qaida. Now, that's rather suspicious.

Also suspicious is the number of telephone conversations between Bayoumi and Saudi government representatives. It was a very substantial number that remains classified. Then, the event that really raised our suspicions was that shortly after Alhazmi and Almihdhar flew from Bangkok [Thailand] to Los Angeles [after attending an al-Qaida conference in Malaysia that resulted in their being added to a CIA watch list], Bayoumi tells various persons that he was going to Los Angeles to "pick up some visitors." He drives from San Diego to Los Angeles with a friend. His first stop in Los Angeles was at the consulate of the Saudi government, where he stays for an hour and meets with a diplomat named Fahad al-Thumairy, who subsequently was deported for terrorist-related activities.

After that one-hour meeting, he and that companion go to a Middle Eastern restaurant in Los Angeles to have lunch. They overhear Arabic being spoken at a nearby table. They invite the two young men who are at that table to come and join them. It turns out those two young men are Alhazmi and Almihdhar, two of the 9/11 terrorists. When I asked the staff director of the 9/11 commission about this, he thought it was just a coincidence that they met at this restaurant. I did some independent research. There are at least 134 Middle Eastern restaurants in Los Angeles. So the statistical odds of these two groups meeting at the same Middle Eastern restaurant at the same time are staggering.

You don't believe the meeting was a coincidence?

I'm almost certain this was a prearranged meeting. Later, Bayoumi takes the two terrorists to San Diego, where he introduces them to people who arrange for them to obtain [phony] Social Security cards and flying lessons.

Did the White House specifically request classification of the section on the Saudis?

Technically, it was done by the CIA, but it was at the direction of the White House. I cannot tell

Re:Get Real...

[iriles]

Yeah, wouldn't you consider the American Revolution against the British an act of Terrorism?

No, the American Revolution was a civil war. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. The point being that terrorist acts in them selves don't have much lasting impact but the reaction to them can have much further reaching implications.

Creative quoting?

[Rui del-Negro]

Funny how that site gives you a definition for the noun and a definition for the adjective and you decided to quote the wrong one, eh? Creative quoting, I guess.

Here's the other one (for the noun, from the very same page):

"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" (fits Fahrenheit 9/11 like a glove, more so than any of Moore's previous documentaries, in fact).

But let's see what specialised sites have to say about it:

[1] "an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view"

[2] "a nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme"

[3] "a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter"

[4] "an eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects"

[5] "factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view"

I've been working on (and watching) documentaries for a couple of decades, and these are the definitions employed and accepted by the authors, the industry, the critics, the festivals and the viewers. If you think a documentary is something else, you can either a) correct yourself or b) try to convice every filmmaker, film institute, film festival, cinema historian, etc., that they are wrong.

Either way, good luck, it's not going to be easy.

RMN
~~~

Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[Minna Kirai]

Under no circumstances would we overthrow our existing government and install a Bhuddist emperor.

There is no such thing as a "Bhuddist emperor". It seems you might have just mispelled "Buddhist", but that's not right either. Japan has 2 religions: Shinto and Buddhism. The Emperor's authority (as well as the nation's aggressive pride) comes from Shinto.

Re:Voters don't think

[metamatic]

yes, the recession started while Clinton was still in office

If you're going to lie, you might at least attempt a slightly convincing lie. The NBER web site has a nice summary of the official government figures showing when the recession began. It began in March 2001. If you don't believe that page, download the original data and graph it yourself with GNUplot (yes, I have done so) and you'll see that the first dip began in December 2000 just after the elections, with the downswing as W took power in January, and the official recession starting in March.

Re:um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, Americans do not vote directly for the president.

Bad system in my opinion, but then again, this is /., no one cares about any one else's opinion... ^_^