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

[savagedome]

Before everyone starts flaming, everything in the documentary was 'facts'. Now, the way he presented them was his own spin on the 'truth'. You need to take it with a grain of salt.

Nobody wants to talk about the real issues anyway. Both the parties are busy butchering each other on stupid stuff.

Re:questions have been raised

[dnno]

And what, may I ask makes his answers correct?

Re:questions have been raised

[dirvish]

How about his sources?

Re:questions have been raised

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

there's some irony in linking to one man's website to rebut the statements on another man's website.

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

[Speare]

And what, may I ask makes his answers correct?

You are under the naive delusion (common of geeks and kids) that there is a crisp and objective "correct answer" to everything, and that knowing the correct answer will solve anything.

Re:questions have been raised

[iceperson]

I guess if you call altering newspaper editorials and letters to the editor "facts". If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"? The way I see it there are lies, damned lies, and Moore "documentaries".

Re:questions have been raised

[Carbonite]

Now, the way he presented them was his own spin on the 'truth'.

There's spin and there's deception.

If I say "John Smith has not beat his wife in the past eight months" it implies that at some point in the past he abused her. The statement may be true, but very deceptive. Moore used the same tactics in Fahrenheir 9/11.

For example, Moore claims that Rep. Porter Goss doesn't have an 800 number that people can use to report problems with the USA PATRIOT act. An ordinary phone number (area code 202) flashes on the screen. However, Rep. Goss does have a toll-free number for USA PATRIOT act. It's (877) 858-9040. Moore was technically correct when he stated there wasn't an 800 number, but this tactic couldn't be considered anything but deception.

Re:questions have been raised

[nojomofo]

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.

Re:questions have been raised

[danheskett]

The facts are cited yes, but not the conclusions.

"X" is a fact. (link here)
"Y" is a fact. (link here)
"Z" is a fact. (link here)

However, when you then say that "X->Y->Z and therefore W is true, and see the links that backup X, Y, and Z for proof."

The test here, really, is this:

If Michael Moore had of presented his film with neutral point of view, would most people agree with his conclusions presented seperately?

I'll give you an example:

Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin."
The links he use only provide casual relation of the facts, they are not evidence of his claim. He links to an article which says that the owner of a company purchased by the owner of a subsidary who prepared the felon list gave $100,000 to the RNC. Is Michael Moore suggesting that the $100,000 was quid pro quo for putting blacks on the list? Is he suggesting that the man who sold his company to a company who has a subsidary that prepared the list had influence over the list? He doesn't say. He uses inference and the "ohh, of course there was collusion" factor to make his actual claim. The links are just simple distractions here.

Likewise, he doesn't address any counter-arguments. For example, that the "vote counting" woman in fact does no vote counting. For example, that the people who actually supervise the vote counts are elected officals of the county they work for. For example, that most counties in Florida did not use the felon listed. This presents a serious credibility problem. If you read the refutation points that are linked, it is interesting to note that race was specifically disallowed as a criteria, and that no evidence has ever been presented to counter this. But again, Moore doesn't address any of this, and instead, tries to prove wrong doing by inference only.

So, basically, what I am saying is this: having the articles that back up his quotes, figures, etc are nice, but they only backup the individual statements - not his combined synthesized conclusions. That is a major flaw.

Re:questions have been raised

[Jett]

I call BS on the site which raises questions on F9/11. In the very first section he links to a study by someone who has been completely discredited in the academic community: John Lott.

Re:questions have been raised

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Right on.

I 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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I've wondered why nobody has pursued Bush's illegitimate and aborted child

Probably because they're all on the same alien spacecraft with Art Bell, wearing tin-foil hats and talking with Elvis. What gives with people buying into this stuff anyway? Why do otherwise intelligent people suspend all critical thinking and go Unabomber wacko when they hear or see a conservative?

A friend of mine had an interesting theory (which he based on my behavior, amusingly). I used to be significantly overweight, and have since lost it all and am in good shape. When I see overweight people, especially fat geeky introverted guys, I tend to really get disgusted with them. I'd want to go over to them and tell them to put the 60 ounce sugar fountain drink down and get a grip on their life.

My friend (a wanna be shrink, I think) observed that I'd react most severely to people that were like the part of me I was irresponsible with. Some sort of self hatred I projected into these beefy nerds. Look at the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd. Their hatred is equally emotional and irrational. A bunch I know scream about him being a former alcoholic and alleged coke user. "He's no better than anyone else." Curiously, those that scream the most are the ones who refuse to get control of their own substance abuse issues. And isn't it curious that the party that has made abortion rights a perpetual issue is accusing Bush of having one? Yes, they claim hypocracy, but don't they have a mirror in their house?

My recommendation to all you loathing, under-successful people of intelligence and potential: Get off of the loser trip today. Set down these two rules for yourself:

1. Do not let yourself condemn or criticize anyone else. You've got enough to work on with yourself. Deep down, you know you're projecting self-hatred onto others. You know hating Bush or Kerry not only doesn't fix your own problems, but is a lie to yourself that allows you to pretend you're doing something when you're not.

2. Establish your principles and DO NOT SACRIFICE THEM FOR ANYTHING. Be consistent - this is your gold standard and the definition of your self value. This is what you'll be remembered for - not for all the attacks you made on other people, or how you were a "master of nuance" (history looks very negatively upon such intellectual frauds). If you believe it is wrong for people to be attacking your candidate on his Viet Nam service, then apply it to both candidates. If you think it would be wrong for George Bush to come out with the espose the night before the election on Kerry's affairs or nasty details on his divorce/affairs, then stand up and oppose Michael Moore doing the same to Bush. The more you stand up for the other side or other guy, the more you'll find your objectivity strenghtening.

I didn't become un-fat before I started dealing with my lies, delusions and hatred of myself as expressed in others. Give it a shot and live won't suck so much!

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

[terrymr]

If you're refering to the counting of the electoral college votes, then Al Gore had a duty to essentially tell them to sit down and shut up. The rules only allow a vote to be challenged if the motion challenging the vote is properly submitted theirs was not and so they were out of order.

Re:questions have been raised

[Spoticus]

If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"?

Why not?
Microsoft does it all the time and people take it as fact.
US News media does it all the time and people take it as fact.
Marketing people do this all the time and people take it as fact.

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

[PsiPsiStar]

Speaking as a person who usually votes "left"
Michael Moore has become known for this junk.. He alters text and then displays it like it was an original document. He edits together people's words.

This is tantamount to lying in your bibliography, and this kind of routine sloppiness certainly disqualifies his work as any kind of 'documentary.'

I expect this kind of distortion of truth from the Republican party (considering all the misleading shit they put forward at their latest convention).
Now Democrats have their own Rush Limbaugh. What's sad is that this type of tactic will probably be as effective for the "left" as for the right.

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

[aixou]

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.


No, the war room skirts around the issues. Read more closesly at Kopel's page, he includes counters of Michael's "War room" counter arguments. There is so much goddamn spin and sleight of hand in F911 that it's difficult for me to take seriously at all. It's not that he isn't mostly accurate factually, its that he implies so much bullshit that you begin to drown in it half way though.

Carefully read through kopels page, and then read Moore's counter arguments, before you come to a decision on just how good of fact check Moore's war room does.

Re:questions have been raised

[EnderWiggnz]

ya know what -

F911 is the counter argument. for years we've heard the administrations steady drumbeat of all terror, all the time, through various media outlets - there has been no counter argument to the admin's claims. even the NYT and WP admitted that they should have been more vigorous in verifying the steady stream of shit coming from the whitehouse.

Finally - we get the other side of the story, and you have the audacity to point out that theres an agenda? no shit. you watch a cousteau documentary, and you get a pro-environment slant. you watch a holocaust documentary, you get an anti-nazi slant, you watch an energy companies documentary, you get a "how wonderful the world is with our energy" slant.

the purpose of a documentary is to advance the authors point of view.

the *NEWS* is supposed to report both sides of the issue.

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

[Slime-dogg]

It is also a mistake of the editing and cutting, which was done by Michael Moore.

When doing "Documentaries," you are carrying a responsibility of presenting truth to the audience. Unfortunately, Moore gives documentaries a bad name. He doesn't use much logic to peice together his arguments, rather, he relies upon the heartstrings of his viewers. He does his own stuff, because he would definitely be fired if he ever worked in a normal reporting position. Remember the NY Times fiasco?

Gore lost. It has been four years already. It's about time that you got over it, stopped bitching, and got on with the rest of your life.

Re:questions have been raised

[iwadasn]

When we were shown the videotape of the police beating rodney king, that was also skewed. It hardly showed the LAPD at their best, nor was it representative of the vast majority of LAPD officers, however... it was the truth. A single "mishap" of that magnitude is enough for a criminal case, and the fact that it might not happen all the time is irrelevant.

The vast majority of serial killers spend the vast majority of their time not killing, does that make it OK? Could you walk into a court of law and say "well, you do have my client on film killing someone, but he doesn't do that all the time, certainly less than one hour a month, how about we just let it slide".

The facts are the facts. Biased or not, what was shown in that movie should be enough to get bush nailed to the cross, even if it is a selection of his worst deeds.

Re:questions have been raised

[networkBoy]

In case you haven't noticed, the people in America (where I live) are too stupid to elect a legit leader

I live in California (Kali?) where we elect actors . . . So there!.
I do agree with you about the legit leader thing though.
-nB

Re:questions have been raised

[dup_account]

And this Kopel's page is full of absolute truths? Nice that you'll beleive one political operative so completely, but discount a different political operative... Could it be that Kopel's half truths and spins fit better with your picture of reality that Michael's do?

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

[aixou]

No, of course the Kopel page isn't full of absolute truths. But, if you're going to watch F911, I think it'd be smart to make an effort to read both the Kopel page and the Michael Moore war room before coming to a decision. I know too many people that take F911 as gospel, and its irritating. (but then again, people who take gospel like gospel are a bit mislead as well :P)

Re:questions have been raised

[osbornk]

People always talked about all these mysterious votes that were not counted. What about the fact that the media declared Gore the winner before all the polls in Florida had closed. Remember that Florida is in two time zones. And the panhandle is heavily Republican. And guess what, there was a very low voter turnout in the panhandle because they thought that Gore had already won in Florida.

Re:questions have been raised

[Knara]

Of course, anyone spouting this line shows they have no concept of how legislative process (and politics in the US in general)works.

Let's take a hypothetical example:

I write a bill. It is good. It goes through committees and ends up with a hundred unrelated riders.

Now, my friend, he doesn't mind those 100 riders, so he votes on the initial bill. The bill doesn't get enough votes, gets sent back to committee.

In that committee, it gets reworked, a few more riders. Gets sent back to congress. It gets voted for debate (my friend votes for the debate to happen), and then in the process a few more motions get approved that tack a few more provisions on that bill.

Now, one of those provisions says that some state can take more water from the Colorado river than it already does. The Colorado river is already under huge pressure from water users, and my friend is a representative from CO. Therefore, when the bill comes up, he votes against it because he can't approve a legislative measure that would deprive his already drought-conditioned constituents of even more water.

Problem is, that bill would have provided affordable housing for 250,000 families across the country.

So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records, and presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."

And then idiots like you repeat it. This is why our political climate is like it is, because you and your ilk can't think for yourselves and just regurgitate what some website or candidate talking point says. Do us all a favor, and if you don't have anything to say that isn't just PR for one side or the other, just shut up.

Re:questions have been raised

[abe ferlman]

Oh he *implies* stuff... by speaking the truth. I see. He makes a bunch of true statements and leaves the viewer to draw conclusions based on... true evidence. What a tricky guy!

The best way to figure out whether or not Moore's truthful depictions "imply" stuff unfairly is to see it for yourself and decide whether or not those implications are warranted.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

You know, that would have had the opposite effect on me. If someone was calling Iowa for Bush, and the polls weren't closed, I'd go driving down the streets with a bullhorn trying to round up anyone I could find that hadn't voted yet.

Perhaps I'm just weird that way.

Re:questions have been raised

[GodfatherofSoul]

Gore would have won Florida by any state-wide recounting scheme (I think there were 4). It was only some (or all) of the county-wide recounts that wouldn't have helped him.

As for "states rights," that term has inherited more definitions than the Founders originally envisioned. For example, it was used as a euphemism for pro-segregation during the civil rights struggle.

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

[moonsammy]

Ok, I won't "condemn or criticize anyone else" - but I'm certainly going to condemn and criticize a group. Bush himself *might* not be a bad guy, but his administration as a whole is horrific. Let's look at the score:
- Unjustified war in Iraq. No WMDs found, no tangible link between Saddam and Al Queda. Was Saddam a tyrant that deserved to be overthrown? Yes. But the United States had no legitimate excuse to do so. We *ARE NOT* the world's police. We have better things to do in our own country with the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives this war has cost us. War should always, always, *always* be the last option, and only when it is absolutely necessary. I think a certain religious figure the administration claims to believe in would agree.
- Extremely shady corporate connections. "Kenny Boy" Lay and Enron. Halliburton, run by Cheney at the time, found guilty of illegal accounting practices. No-bid contracts.
- Voting machines. Do I really need to say any more? You read slashdot, right? I just can't in good faith believe that these things would have been pushed as hard if the guys who run the companies didn't favor the incumbent.
- Environmental policy. I'm not going to get started on this really, it would take too long. Go ahead and google for "Bush administration environment" if you need convincing that they are *really* frickin' bad on this issue.
- Inequal rights. I don't care where you stand on the issue, but do you really agree that a constitutional amendment is the best way to "preserve the sanctity of marriage?" Why is this a federal government issue in the first place? Isn't marriage a (mainly) religious practice that the government only cares about in terms of taxing? I personally think any two people who are actually going to stay with each other in the long run should be legally allowed to make that commitment, but I can see why some would disagree. But a constitutional amendment is very much the wrong answer to this social disagreement. Why not just have churches that don't like gay marriage not recognize such unions? The catholic church doesn't recognize my marriage (as I wasn't married by a priest), and they're welcome not to - but it is not the government's place to make moral judgements.
- Dismantling of "inalienable" rights. Why does the government need to be able to review my library records? Is there anything in public libraries I'm not supposed to be reading? Have any terrorists really been caught by spying on the entire populace, ever? Why the hell are people being held in prisons without due process? Are they so dangerous that due process would harm the country?

Ok, so what are the administration's strengths? Really? I can't think of any. Defense? Granted, they're probably more militaristic than a democratic administration would be, but I have yet to be convinced this has helped make us safer. If anything, the Iraq war has lead to a greater percentage of the world hating the US, which just can't be a good thing in the long run.

Fahrenheit 9/11 might not be 100% factually accurate. It might be misleading in some parts. But have you seen it? The movie is a stunning indictment of the general wrong-headedness of the current administration, and even if 50% of it was bunk, it would still piss me off that our leaders are getting away with as much as they are.

In short, I don't like John Kerry, but he's the best bet to get this completely unpalatable administration out. And that's why I'm going to vote for him, and encourage to the best of my ability everyone I know to do likewise.

To tie this all back to the parent post - I'm not projecting self-hatred onto others when I say I hate the Bush administration. I like myself, and honestly believe I'm a good person. I have my faults, but I recognize them and try to either make up for them or work to make them go away. But I hate this administration, and wish nothing but bad things to happen to those involved it it (mmm... life-long prison sentences...). I'm not going to stand up for the administration for the sake of giving myself objectivity - I'm going to stand by my principles and do what I can to get them out of office.

Re:questions have been raised

[JWhitlock]

Now, my friend, he doesn't mind those 100 riders, so he votes on the initial bill. The bill doesn't get enough votes, gets sent back to committee.

...

So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records, and presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."

And then idiots like you repeat it. This is why our political climate is like it is

I'd say it's a good reason why governors have an easier time getting elected than legislators. Being in the executive branch at the state level lets you take clear stands, while someone at the state or national assembly has to become really good at compromise.

I don't think that people that call legislators "flip-floppers" are idiots. I just think it is a sad reflection on the political knowledge of the average citizen.

Of course, most who state that opinion on a public forum are idiots, or campaign workers...

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a documentary is a factual and objective presentation. Nothing Moore does is objective. If he was really doing a documentary he would only present the facts, and leave it up to the viewers to form their own opinions. This is pure propaganda, designed to attack the current administration. I've seen Moores other work, and to be honest he did make some valid points. The problem is not with his opinions, or the questions he raises, but with the way he presents the "facts". You cant twist the truth to make it more dramatic then call it fact. So he doesn't like Bush, thats fine. A lot of people don't. Then just say "I don't like Bush, so I made a funny little film about him." Don't lie and say it's anything else.

BTW, who does Moore like? I cant imagine hes for Kerry, and he certainly didn't care for Clinton.

Now for my statement, all you losers pay attention, voting for someone because they ARE NOT BUSH is not a good way to choose a canaidate. Tell me what Kerry has done in his career as a Senator, or what he plans to do in office that makes him a good choice for the Presidency.

Well, I'm listening.

Re:questions have been raised

[protohiro1]

You see, we can't stand bush or his administration not because we hate outselves. Its because we (I promise) strongly disagree with his policies. So much so that he just starts to piss us off.

I can speak for "the liberals" as a group, because we aren't all the same. Personally, I really believe that things like universal socialized health care and marriage rights for homosexuals are a good idea. Not because I am a self-loathing loser (but thanks for saying that, really raised the level of the discourse) but because I rationally read about this issues and I believe that these are good solutions. I don't support (and never did support) the war in iraq because I believe that it is an unecessary waste of human life and money. I believe that based on as many objective (and varied) sources I can get.

Some people say crazy stupid things. People of all political stripes. That doesn't mean you can paint millions of people with the same brush. The fact that going to Iraq was a foolish mistake, sold to the people with very deceptive rhetoric is something most people came to understand pretty reasonably. Not because people went "Unabomber wacko".

You seem to have trouble with this, so I'll repeat it: I disagree with Bush on basically everything. Because I rationaly looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion. When various conservatives start basically making things up to argue their point--then I get real mad. When Mr. Bush talks about war, when he for whatever reason didn't want to go himself...that pisses me off. When people attack Kerry's war record I would love to sit down and say, that's wrong. But when it keeps coming and their candidate pulled favors to avoid serving in the same war. Well I start getting snippy. If another conservative post anonymously on the internet that I need to stop condeming and critizing other people and in the same post implies that people who agree with me are losers, then I get REAL pissed off.

Oh, and what's this crap about substance abuse? How many substance abusing liberals do you know? I know a lot of long sober people who really did overcome substance abuse problems that feel like I do about bush. I can't stand the guy and I hardly drink and I have never used illegal drugs. So step off, AC, ok?

Re:questions have been raised

[Alaska Jack]

I just want to point out one small error in part of your post.

Bush did not attack Kerry (or McCain, AFAIK) over Vietnam. It is Kerry who, as it has been pointed out time and time again, made his four months of service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. Even during the primary campaign, it was pointed out that he brought up Vietnam constantly, at every single opportunity.

The fact is that the stuff a politician brings up on the campaign trail is fair game for criticism from all interested parties. For his part, Bush has been far more interested in fighting the current war then he has been in going back and arguing over Vietnam.

Here's another way to look at it. Your (mistaken, I believe) perception that Bush attacked Kerry over Vietnam obviously irritated you. That's natural -- it would irritate most Americans. Now: Given that, do you really think it would be wise for Bush to do that? Of course not -- it would be monumentally foolish. Bush is hugely popular in the military, and he didn't get that way be criticizing war veterans for their service.

- Alaska Jack

Re:questions have been raised

[nojomofo]

No, I don't concede that Michael Moore is a liar. In fact, I haven't even seen Fahrenheit 911. So it would be inappropriate for me to judge either way. What I am doing is attempting to counter the implication (I'll admit that it's unsaid) that I'm getting from a whole lot of posts that Michael Moore is engaged in unfair shenanigans that the Republicans would never consider themselves.

About a decade ago, the Republicans decided that they would do whatever it took to win (dirty or otherwise), and for the most part, the Democrats haven't done the same (and have suffered for it) (this statement will undoubtedly get several very vehement replies, but I believe that it's true). Some may view what Michael Moore is doing as leveling the playing field - I won't make that judgment because (as I said) I don't know that he's being deceptive.

You should take anything that you hear from anybody with the appropriate grain of salt. That goes for Michael Moore, John Kerry, and yes, George W Bush. I believe that you need an awfully large grain of salt with anything that W says, but that's just me.

Re:questions have been raised

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

It's an illustration. It shows how one can recite facts while distorting their meaning.

Here's another one for you. Suppose we were discussing Adolf Hitler and I told you that:

1. He united the German people and lifted their spirits following their defeat in WW1.
2. He was elected by a large majority in a fair election.
3. He conquered most of Europe.

These are historically verifiable facts, yet they do not convey the truth about the man. This is what Moore does. He shows the portions of interviews and events that support his goal. It's not 'spin' or 'bias'. A half truth is a full lie.

Re:questions have been raised

[uberdave]

It is possible to make only true statements, and yet lead people to a false conclusion. It's called spin, or marketing, and it is done all the time.

Re:questions have been raised

[be-fan]

Well, I saw the movie, and several of these criticisms aren't really accurate:

* 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.
I don't remember him implying that Fox News had any power to change it, just that they were in the lead in declaring Bush president.

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

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

*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)
It's not an implication, it's a matter of public record. Whether or not he can do work away from the Whitehouse is a seperate issue. Now, I know when I do work at home, I'm not nearly as productive as I am at work, and I'm not the fricking President of the USA! His work probably involves, to a great degree, meeting with other people, and that's certainly something that is restricted by him not being in DC.

*Implying that Bush didn't read the briefing mentioning the potential terrorist threat.
I'm pretty sure it came out that he didn't.

*Implying that there were no flights allowed in the air when the saudis left the country.
Yeah, this is true.

*Implying that the Bin Ladens weren't at all questioned before leaving the air.
This is patently false. The movie did say they were questioned, just that it was cursory and they weren't detained for more extensive questioning.

Personally, I didn't like the movie. I get his point, but he uses a low-class argumentative style, using emotion more than reason. Personally, I thought there were lot's of ways to nail Bush using a purely rational argument. That said, I'm beginning to think purely rational arguments would exceed the attention span of most voters, so the evil of Michael Moore style arguments is necessary to counter the very effective marketing machine on the Republicans' side.

Re:questions have been raised

[Colazar]

David Kopel on his website spent several paragraphs talking about how one could speak only "facts" and not convey the "truth." In Sematics we talk about the "Presumption of Relevance," which is that if you say something, it is presumed to have something to do with the conversation, or what you said before. The textbook example I remember was:

Q: Do you know what time it is?

A: That was the number 12 bus.

In this case, the questioner will usually assume that the fact that the number 12 bus went by can somehow tell him what time it is. (ie it goes by every half hour.) However, you can mislead someone, without "lying" by violating this presumption. Say you happen to know that the #12 bus was 15 minutes late, but don't mention that. Your "factual" response has led the questioner to think it is 15 minutes earlier than it actually is. The movie _Being There_ is a good example of humor that works by violating the Presumption of Relevance.

All of which is to say that, according to David Kopel, at least, (I have not seen F9/11), most of the problems in the movie are from violating this precept--putting two facts together in such a way that the only logical conclusion you can draw is an incorrect one. This is misleading. This is wrong. I decry it.

However, what really annoys me(as someone who opposed the War in Iraq) is that Bush did the *exact same thing* when he argued for going to war against Iraq. I honestly don't understand how someone can micro-analyze one side of the argument, but not the other.

Personally, I could have been convinced to go to war against Saddam Hussein. But not with the arguments that were made at the time, which didn't pass my sniff test then, and look even worse now.

Re:questions have been raised

[fingusernames]

What the Supreme Court ruled is, ahem, nuanced. Yet, clear.

To wit:

The Supreme Court of the State of Florida has the power to review the acts of the legislature of the state when those acts are an exercise of a power granted by the people of Florida via the Florida constitution.

However, the United States Constitution states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ..." The Supremes ruled that such power exercised via an explicit grant of authority in the United States Constitution is not reviewable by a state supreme court. Hence, the Florida Supreme Court had no power to intervene in determining the manner in which Florida assigns Electors: the authority was not grounded in the Florida constitution, but rather the United States constitution. That power is clearly granted solely to the Legislature, and given the source of the authority, it is directly reviewable by the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decision, while unquestionably controversial, was correct. This power of regulating federal elections was allocated solely to the elected state legislature, and is a federal, not state, matter when it comes to review.

Larry

Re:questions have been raised

[Bill Hayden]

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).

That would be because, at the time, Florida inexplicably had no checkbox on the felon ethnicity form for "hispanic". This has been widely reported and re-reported here in Florida since the new felon list came out a couple months ago. There were probably thousands of hispanics, but they were not listed as such. Perhaps the 50 were the ones who bothered to fill in the blank next to "Other".

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

[killjoe]

If it was so correct why did the supreme court specifially state that it could never be used as a precedent and they reserve the right to rule the opposite way if another case comes their way?

My guess is that they reserve the right to elect a republican no matter what the law says.

Re:questions have been raised

[maxpublic]

Problem is that people like you get hung up on the small points

You mean like people deliberately lying to me? Yeah, I guess I'm old-fashioned that way. Color me crazy, but when I know you're a liar I have a pretty hard time trusting the veracity of what comes out of your mouth.

but for many people giving out one free gun is one too many.

Well, now ain't that something! "Many people", in this case, represents a tiny but annoyingly vocal segment of the American population. The vast majority has no desire whatsoever to ban gun ownership, and would never consider repealing the Second Amendment.

In fact, it appears that the anti-gun lobby is losing ground since the number of Americans in favor of an outright ban in firearms is lower now than it's been any time during the last twenty years, and more Americans go armed today since the immediate post-World War II period.

Gun ownership is not fascism, by the way. To imply such a thing is to mark yourself as a loon.

Max

Re:questions have been raised

[node 3]

You have entirely missed the point of calling Bush out on his abortion, alcoholism, coke habit, etc.

The reason is that he oppresses people who have had these very problems. The right has abortions (Bush), gets divorced (Limbaugh), has affairs (Gingrich), does drugs (Bush), etc. But the right likes to claim these things are only done by evil people. The left believes that view to be wrong and points out the hypocrisy in order to make the case that the evil is not in doing those things but in oppressing, as opposed to helping, those so afflicted.

The right is in the position of the privileged class. They can do with impunity the very things that they throw the poor in jail for. That is evil and that is why the left is so loud about such issues.

Re:questions have been raised

[sg3000]

> more votes had been cast for Gore than for Bush

Not to mention the fact that Jeb Bush worked to have thousands of African Americans purged from the voter rolls prior the election by misclassifying them as felons. As reported in the New York Times, he's tried to do it again in 2004 and then tried to keep the voter rolls secret.

Re:questions have been raised

[Myopic]

No that's not true. F451 might be like the Rodney King video, but the "misleading" part is not that the officers don't beat up negros every night, rather that the media never showed the parts of that video where Rodney lunged at and tried to attack the officers. By only showing the part where twenty white officers kicked a downed black man, the media took away the context of the beating. Now, most people would nevertheless say that beating a man senseless is not the appropriate response to a suspect hitting an officer, but that is the context of the entire event, and context is important.

Likewise, Mr. Moore may show you some detail of Bush's presidency, but by leaving out the context he robs you of the ability to make an informed judgement. Actually, Moore often does even worse by not only removing the original context, but by implying a totally different, often contradictory context.

It comes down to this: context is everything. Without context, it's next to impossible to apply critical thought.

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

[nine-times]

I also never said that if you do nothing wrong, nothing bad will ever happen to you. I do not have the ability to control other people's choices, which may or may not affect me negatively.

And if everyone chose "correctly"? Then what? What would that even look like, do you think?

If you have kids, you'll know that it's better to let a child fall over a couple of times while learning to walk than to prevent them from walking at all. That is an example of a best-choice, which I dub "correct," which does cause pain.

How are you so sure? Have you ever prevented one of your children from learning to walk? Do you think you could- or maybe he'd learn to walk anyhow? Or let's get less hypothetical- there must have been times where you caught your child, and there must have been times that you've let him fall. Were each of these individual choices "correct"? If you say yes, I'm going to be very confused on how you can be sure for any given fall. Your kids aren't teenagers yet, are they?

There are shades, but there is always a "most correct," and sometimes there are a couple of them.

Well, then. What is the "most correct" college for me to go to? What's the "correct" job? Is it "correct" to get married? Who is the "correct" woman for me to marry? If she's dating someone else, is it more or less "correct" to try to woo her anyway? What if he's all wrong for her? What if some people think I'm all wrong for her? Could that be "correct"?

What is the "correct" age for me to get married? To start having kids? And their "correct" names? What is the "correct" question for me to ask you right now? Is it "correct" for me to be responding to you at all?

It's just, well, since I have an expert here, I figured I'd ask as many question as I can. What's the correct car for me to buy? What's the correct color? And the correct music to listen to? I have 5 CDs; which is the "correct" one to listen to today? What is the most correct place to buy my clothes? Pens, pencils, paper... what are the correct brands? Is it more correct to sleep on my back or my stomach? How much correct information do I need before I can make the most correct correct decision? If I think I've done the correct thing, and you think I haven't, who's correct?

Or do you think it possible that a lot of these decisions don't have correct answers? Sometimes it's not just what you do, but how you do it. Sometimes there isn't a correct way to do it- each of us must do it our own way.

Imagine yourself in a room with an infinite number of closed doors, and beyond each, a mystery. Each door has signs on it, but but signs that no mortal man can read fully. Behind each door, perhaps lies another room with an infinite number of closed doors- or perhaps nothing at all. Each room is different, but each is just another room, no more right than the others- can a room be more "right" than the other rooms, after all?

But perhaps some rooms make you happier. Perhaps your happy rooms make me sad. Which rooms you like best will even change as you go. Perhaps there are multiple paths to any given room, but perhaps not, and you'll never know, because you aren't permitted to backtrack, and you're not permitted to peek. Only one thing is certain, and that is, at every moment, you must step through a door, leaving one room, entering another.

Right now, right this moment, you are about to pass through a door, and you hardly have the full moment to decide which one- you certainly can't examine them all. Tell me quickly, which door is "correct"?

Re:questions have been raised

[Zeinfeld]

Speaking as a person who usually votes "left" Michael Moore has become known for this junk.. He alters text and then displays it like it was an original document. He edits together people's words.

Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the left, he is sloppy and his politics are often infantile - he was a Naderite in 2000, he helped elect Bush.

If you want good journalism then don't go to Rush Limbaugh, Commander Taco or Michael Moore, they all have their axes to grind. Don't go to Fox News, best still avoid the US "news" altogether, try the UK press, the Economist, Guardian, Times, BBC, Independent, Financial Times will all give a much better view of US politics than pretty much any US journalism.

Moore is simply giving the right a taste of what Fox News has done for years and to a far lesser degree.

Moore is not good journalism, he is not even particularly great as a propagandist, but he does not practice the absolutely deliberate distortions that Fox, Limbaugh, Swift Boat Veterans for Bush, etc. peddle.

Sure it would be good if US citizens actually learned to think for themselves. Since they refuse to people lime Limbaugh, Moore and Murdoch will do their thinking for them.

That is why Bush is at arround 50% in the polls instead of 15% which isw where you would expect a President whose economic plan is an utter failure, who has increased federal govt. spending more than either Carter or Clinton, who has lost millions of jobs, has stopped trying to catch Bin Laden and has instead started a $200 billion plus 1000 dead war of choice.

Bush is not a conservative, he is a complete incompetent.

Re:questions have been raised

[antic]

Well said. He is also doing spectacular work of making the people of the USA look like apathetic dimwits for electing him and putting up with it.

He is embarrassing your country on the world stage.

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.

Good!

[iamacat]

It will get people to vote either to oppose Bush or to oppose people who are influenced by the movie. Either way, democracy wins over apathy!

Re:Good!

[danheskett]

The problem is that Michael Moore - a private citizen - has a right to get this on the air. But thanks to McCain-Feingold, another individual who doesn't have the money to produce and publicize a documentary doesn't have the ability to respond. Advertisments by individuals and parties will be greatly restricted that late in the campaign.

That's not very democratic.

Re:Good!

[rlglende]

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.

The manipulation of the mob is always easy, and modern media and concentrated media ownership has mad it even easier. Now, even a boob like Bush can succeed.

The US Constitution also tried to limit government power to prevent a boob like Bush from doing great damage. Too bad we ignore those parts of the Constitution, also.

Lew

Re:Good!

[rde]

Democracy is an imperfect process, in any country. There's no law that could be passed that would improve it without impinging on someone else's rights somewhere along the line.

Advertisments by individuals and parties will be greatly restricted that late in the campaign. That's not very democratic
In an ideal world, where advertisements are about truth and informing the electorate, you'd be right. But McCain-Feingold is a ruling for the real world, where no party is capable of informative ads; they're either misrepresentations or simplifications. The very fact that the ads are thirty seconds long should tell you that they're not capable of anything constructive. In that context, McCain-Feingold is a Good Thing.

Re:Good!

[Frequanaut]

Your post makes no sense:

" But thanks to McCain-Feingold, another individual who doesn't have the money to produce and publicize a documentary doesn't have the ability to respond."

You state the (hypothetical I assume) person can't respond due to lack of money, but blame that lack of money on McCain-Feingold? McCain-Feingold in no way prevents that persons ability to respond on a similar scale. It's that persons lack of money preventing this.

But, you are right. It's not democratic, it *is* capitalistic though. What would you prefer? That the government pay for some sort of rebuttal?

That sounds downright socialistic. Why don't you go back to communist Russia you socialist pig?
(Wait...this isn't fox is it?)

If you're looking for some sort of democracy in action, look at the throngs of ill thought
responses here on /.

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!

[maxpublic]

The fact that the federal and state governments are formed as republics isn't a due to idealism or even cynicism -- rather, it's one chosen because of the impossibility of direct democracy at anything other than the very local level.

That simply isn't true. The founding fathers publicly and repeatedly stated that they thought direct democracy to be a very bad idea. I've already told you where to look if you want to confirm that, which you're welcome to do at any decent public library (or perhaps online, by now).

I repeat myself, but they said that direct democracy was nothing more than a tyranny of the majority, and no better than the tyranny enforced by a single man - a king. The Constitution specifically limited government power through the First through Fifth Amendments, and later the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to keep the majority from ever using the tool of government to oppress the minority.

All of this is public record and should have been taught to you in high school. I find it surprising that your education has been so lax and so full of misinformation. But you're perfectly capable of going to the source and correcting these deficiencies yourself, which I encourage you to do.

Max

Voters don't think

[fred3666]

This election hasn't been about issues anyway. It's about Bush during 9/11 or Kerry during Vietnam.

Re:Voters don't think

[Nos.]

As a Canadian, I find American politics to be... disturbing. It seems most of the media is about politicians attacking each other rather than promoting themselves. Growing up in Canada I don't remember seeing this here, but lately its started to become the same thing here. Rather that promote their plans for the future, they basically take the stance of, well at least we're not doing what the other party is.
I'd rather see politicians telling us what there plan is rather than spending their air time making suggestions about who inhaled while they were in college.

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

If the GOP can have Fox News, we can have F9/11. Not exactly fair or balanced, but hey!

Re:Voters don't think

[revscat]

It's propaganda if it doesn't provide contrary evidence. What contrary evidence wasn't provided? Did, perhaps, Bush Jr. and Sr. NOT meet with Saudi officials? Is this not a particularly damaging piece of evidence?

In short: what is *factually* not true about what Moore presented? And please, try to use your own words.

Re:Voters don't think

[Moofie]

Right, because an "Us vs. Them" mentality is really the right place to start a political discussion.

I guess I'm just naive.

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

> right place to start a political discussion

Discussion? This is way past discussion. It's political Sidewinder time!

Re:Voters don't think

[demachina]

"by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

God forbid that should happen...

Dick Cheney yesterday saying if you vote the wrong way there will be another 9/11 attack (translation a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda)

Swift Boat Vet ads.

Zel Miller at the RNC. In fact the whole RNC which was designed to stoke peoples fear of terrorism and that their grandchildren would be in danger if Kerry would be elected.

In 2000 the Bush campaign smearing John McCain in South Carolina with charges he fathered a black baby.

The Bush campaign deserves everything they get on the propaganda front because they dish it out non stop. Its just leveling the playing field for Michael Moore and MoveOn.org to give it back to them in kind. If it weren't for them the Kerry campaign would be dueling without a pistol.

Re:Voters don't think

[TGK]

Let me just be frank up front. I'm a Liberal (note the caps on the L). I believe in universal health care, clean air, clear water, a safe and reasonable working environment, all that other good liberal stuff that we take for granted.

I also think G.W. Bush is about the worst thing to happen to this country since Jefferson Davis.

At the same time, I recognize Moore's film as what it is. It's not propaganda, but it's not exactly objective.

First and foremost, it's important to realize that propaganda isn't just one film, one tv program, or one leaflet. Propaganda refers to a blanket of misinformation that is produced and distributed in such a way as to obscure truth and to impose a particular viewpoint as the only viewpoint.

If you want to get technical, Fox News is the closest to Propaganda this country has come in the last 50 years. Fox is as close to a ubiquitous news source as we have in this country and it's view point is very clear. Nonetheless, Fox pitches itself as being "fair and balanced," something it is patently not. Deceptions like this are what constitute propaganda.

In contrast, Moore's film (even ignoring the fact that you can't create media saturation with two hours of footage) is very clear on its objectives and viewpoints. Moore himself is even more vocal, and has made no bones about the liberal bias in his film.

Nonetheless, factual inaccuracies are something he, as a professional documentary maker, has avoided at all costs.

It is worth noting, however, that Moore leads his audience to some conclusions which are not accurate. He never states anything untrue or inaccurate, but he does not prevent his audience from making assumptions.

Example: We hear a great deal about how the Bin Laden family was evacuated in the days following September 11. We know they weren't interviewed by the FBI (this is true). We know planes around the country were grounded (this is also true). We know the Bin Laden family was in the air and on its way out of the country while a lot of other planes were on the ground (also true). We are lead to assume (but never actually told) that the Bin Laden family was flying as a special exception to the faa's ban on air travel. This is not the case, and while Moore never states it, he leads you to the conclusion.

Documentaries are not always without an agenda. Personally, if the GOP wants to push to have Moore's film counted against the advertising budget of the DNC and Kerry I'm all for it. I'd expect the Kerry campaign to have a similar lawsuit pinning the entire operating budget of Fox News (and indeed the Rupert Murdoch media empire) on the RNC in short order though.

Bottom line: quit your bitching. F911 isn't propaganda. Before it can be labeled as such we need to figure out where Rush, Sean Hannity, and O'Riley fit into the definition.

Re:Voters don't think

[revscat]

I largely find myself agreeing with your post, but I did want to address the following:

We are lead to assume (but never actually told) that the Bin Laden family was flying as a special exception to the faa's ban on air travel. This is not the case, and while Moore never states it, he leads you to the conclusion.

Why do you think there was no special exception? The flights out of the country to Saudi Arabia happened during the time that all other flights were grounded. Many -- but not all -- were members of the bin Laden family. Take this in conjunction with recent revelaations that actively sought to suppress an investigation:

And in Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

All evidence points to Bush giving Saudis special treatment at a time when they should have received no such treatment.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Webster's:

Propaganda:
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

How is F9/11 not propaganda?

Re:Voters don't think

[hey]

Nearly all Canadians think Bush is an moron and bad for the USA/world and we don't understand why our American neighbo[u]rs don't see this too. Normally we are very good at understanding the behavour of Americans. In fact we're usually better than Americans at this. Way better than the Brits. I think its like when your sister is dating some guy who is a bit mean or rude and you wish she'd drop him since she can do better. Talking to her won't help -- you know that. You just hope she grows out of him. Good luck, sister.

Re:Voters don't think

[Arethan]

I'll be frank up front too. I'm an Independant, with a capital (I). I believe in clean drinking water, not totally fucking the eco system, keeping the economy rolling, keeping my gun rights, moving away from fossil fuels, nuclear energy, electric cars, the space program, an adequate military budget, and all the other stuff from both sides of the fence that actually make sense.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, explain to me how Fox News is actually sided in the political schema. Seriously now, I'm not being sarcastic. I'd really like to know why you believe that channel has a Republican agenda.

Let's look at their primetime lineup....
Brit Hume - The serious looking old guy. Covers news he reads off the cue-o-matic machine, doesn't add any of his own comments.

Shepard Smith - Appeals to the ladies, the guys think he's funny. Covers new (cue-o-matic! (tm)), adds his own comments, but they're always smart ass remarks trying to be funny.

Bill O'Reilly - The big O. This is the funny one. All the Dems swear he's pro Rep, and the Reps swear he's pro Dem. Independants (like me) like him because he walks both sides of the fence by making logical decisions, rather than simply believing hype. If someone proves him wrong, he admits his fault, and re-evaluates his position on a subject. I've even seen him change his opinion on the air (rarely happens as he is quite well informed, but it does occur from time to time). He's said plenty bad about Bush, and plenty good about him too. Same goes for Kerry. Good show, people should watch it, even if they don't like it. You'll change your opinion of the show after a month or two, I guarantee it.

Hannity & Colmes - Hannity is openly a Republican, Colmes is openly a Democrat. They share a show so the world can watch them argue over issues that they feel are important. Sounds like fairness and balance to me.

Greta Van Susteren - Supposedly one of the best trial reporters around. Why you'd have a reporter specifically for covering trials, I don't know. Do I care what the atmosphere of the Kobee Bryant courtroom was like today? Not really. In fact, I don't even care what the outcome is. Someone else's trial in some other state, does not directly mean anything to my life, so why should it be my business. She doesn't seem to go out of her way to get into political issues.

So let's see now. We have a bunch of news shows that cover (imagine this) the news. None of them really going out of their way to bring politics into the mix as far as I've ever seen. And two shows that actually specifically cover political issues. One is Bill O, and the other is H & C. The Democrats do seem to be saying that Fox News is pro Republican lately. Personally, I chalk that up to the upcoming election. I have noticed a liberal slant to CNN, and I'm sure they'd much rather people watch that instead.

Re:Voters don't think

[bckrispi]

If the GOP can have Fox News, we can have F9/11. Not exactly fair or balanced, but hey!

Perhaps you should clarify "we". From a moderate viewpoint, the "bleeding-heart, Bush-is-a-terrorist, Michael Moore crowd" is just as ludicrous and uninformed as the "bible-thumping, big-business, tax-breaks-for-the-rich" side of the GOP. I am not a supporter of W. But I don't need to put out a propaganda film that would make Joseph Goebbles blush to prove my point. MM does *nothing* for informing the American public by putting out his drivel. He's only playing to his own crowd of "loonie-lefties". As a moderate who does not want four more years W, I find F9/11 to be insulting and counter-productive. Anyone with half a critical mind will dismiss it (like Fox news) for what it is: distorted partisan crap.

You want factual ammo against W? How about this:

• The defecit he's created is the largest in history. This coming off a four-year surplus under Clinton.
• Support the War in Iraq or not, we went there under bad intellegence (WMD, Al-Quaida link). That means that either a) Our intel agencies are horridly inept and incompetent, or b)We were lied to. Both of these warrant a new president, either through elections or impeachment.
• W promised 5 million new jobs. To paraphrase John Kerry, "he's about 6 million short". My mother-in-law, who has 10 years experience as a network admin was forced to take a job paying $10 an hour once her unemployment benefits ran out.
• Millions of good-paying, highly skilled jobs are going overseas. W's response: "The economy's getting stronger".
• Wages for American workers have been flat for the past year, while worker productivity has skyrocketed. Avarage fortune 500 CEO compensation has increased 20% in the past 12 months!!
• I am fortunate enough to be one of the minority who has decent medical coverage. However, in the four years since W. took office my out of pocket medical expenses have increased 250%
• Halliburton, Enron: Did Bush/Cheney do anything unethical or illegal in thier recent dealings with these companies? We need an independant counsel to investigate this. Call it a witch-hunt if you will, but if either of these two made a personal profit off of the war or by bilking American workers out of their life savings, they need to be prosecuted.

"Am I better off now than four years ago?" Hell no!!! I feel like I've been given the job in this administration that Monica Lewinsky had in the last one. It's amazing: we'll impeach a president over lying about a blowjob, but let the lies, deceit and broken promises of this current adminstration go unpunished. Those of us who are against W don't need a shitslinger like MM, we need someone who is capable of tearing him down with facts not propaganda.

Re:Voters don't think

[Keebler71]

Nice post although I presonally disagree with much of it. In agree that the definition of propaganda involves something 'larger' than one documentary. However, FOX news is not propaganda either,... it is biased reporting, just like CNN, NPR and Al Jazeera are biased reporting to various degrees. The difference is that by your own admission, in F911 "Moore leads his audience to some conclusions which are not accurate". While some here seem to think that intentionally misleading someone using only facts is "ok", it is at a minimum "deceptive" and according to dictionary.com may still be a lie (definition 2 of the noun meaning). Thus while F911 is not propaganda, it is certainly a "piece" of propgaganda as would Swift Boat or MoveOn.org ads (provided that they are similiarly deceptive).

I'll admit that Fox is biased, but disagree that it is deceptive. I do agree that if it were deceptive, that it could constitute propaganda due to its scope.

Re:Voters don't think

[maxpublic]

Political discussions almost always devolve into "my god is better than your god" arguments. Your god is always right, always true, always possessed of superhuman qualities, while the other guy's god is scum of the worst sort.

The political atheists among us realize that neither god is actually a god, but just a charlatan posing as divinity. A charlatan with an army of believers willing to turn off the critical faculties of their brain so they can overlook the not-so-divine aspects of their deities.

People aren't idiots; if they were, evolution would've wiped them out a long, long time ago. But it appears that a great many people work very, very hard to become idiots, and let others do their thinking for them.

Max

Re:Voters don't think

[Fascist Christ]

It's all about the advertising. We are not voters. We are consumers. It's like Coke vs Pepsi, but all other cola is kept in the back.

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

Man, you're preaching to the choir. I agree with all your points, and don't personally care much for MM either. I just posted that as a little take on Fox New's slogan, nothing more. I recently got a chance to watch Outfoxed and find that topic a lot scarier than MM's stuff.

> I feel like I've been given the job in this administration
> that Monica Lewinsky had in the last one

One of my favorite bumper stickers reads something like "W: now we're all wearing the blue dress".

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.

Re:Voters don't think

[zCyl]

I'll be frank up front too. I'm an Independant

I'm also an independent, and I support most of the same things that you do. However, your analysis of Fox News is missing most of the details.

I'd really like to know why you believe that channel has a Republican agenda.

The news editor of Fox news is a hardcore republican, who sends all of his newscasters a daily list of issues they are required to talk about, and sends them what viewpoint they should present about these issues. His news reporters then either present his viewpoint or stop becoming his news reporters.

How does a fair and balanced news organization support a controversial war 100%? Shouldn't a news organization instead cover a war, debate its reasoning and necessity, and interview the politicians who support and disagree with the war?

Bill O'Reilly ... like him because he walks both sides of the fence by making logical decisions ... Good show, people should watch it, even if they don't like it. You'll change your opinion of the show after a month or two, I guarantee it.

Watched it for over a year, it's one of the worst shows on news. You must be thinking of a different Bill O'Reilly than the one on Fox News. He shouts down his guests, refuses to let them speak (in particular when they disagree with them), turns off their mics when he disagrees with them, and thinks with one of the most emotionally based irrational minds possible.

When was the last time you saw Larry King yell at a guest, turn off a guest's microphone, or kick a guest off the show?

Hannity & Colmes - Hannity is openly a Republican, Colmes is openly a Democrat

Hannity is a talented and skilled speaker. Colmes is the most sniveling tiny-tiny human they could get to possibly host a news show. It would be wonderful if the two were matched and they had equal ability to present their viewpoints. Hannity is given the vast majority of microphone time, Colmes occasionally gets to express a minority opinion in a poor fashion.

And two shows that actually specifically cover political issues. One is Bill O, and the other is H & C.

Yes, precisely. Greta Van Susteren is probably one of the better reporters on Fox News, but she is usually never given political assignments.

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

The problem with footage is that it can be easily manipulated. Get the cuts right, and you can get "true" video to say almost anything. I'd be more interested in a written piece (in fact, that's how I like my news, too). It is easier to check facts and has less of a "false reality" to it. If you see it on video you assume it's true, even though it's just as easy to lie with video. Reading involves more skepticism, and is harder (but not impossible) to be fooled.

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

"his record of handling the economy and national defense....."

After inheriting a recession (yes, the recession started while Clinton was still in office), then falling victim to an extremely large terrorist attack on some of our key financial centers, followed by the collapse of some of our biggest companies (who had been corrupt for years before GW Bush got there), Bush manages to make it only a recession (not a depression), and the economy is surging back. I like it!

As for national defence - have we been attacked again on our soil? There's several things that he's not doing (like border patrol) but Kerry hasn't said he'll do them either.

The minimalistic number of US casualties from the two wars we've been in show that he is either a great military leader or at least knows who to hire/listen to.

I think he's done a great job, overall. He's way too liberal for me in general, but the issues that have counted in the past 4 years he's come through on.

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:Voters don't think

[demachina]

"So reading the Vice President's words, in context, one can easily see that Cheney was not saying "a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda"

I said "a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda". I was just exposing the cutting edge just underneath the surface of what he was saying.

What Cheney said,

"If we make the wrong choice".

I would translate that as voters choose Kerry assuming this is Cheney's idea of "the wrong choice". Many people would define "the wrong choice" as reelecting Bush/Cheney which would put a whole new spin on this :)

I dont care how you try to parse this, "then the danger is we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that'll be devastating from the standpoint of the United States" he is saying if you elect Kerry then the U.S. will suffer another devastating attack. Its not might be attacked or the chances are higher of being attacked or the response to the attack might be weak, its a danger of a devastating attack.

No matter how you slice it, it is the worst kind of fear mongering.

Problem #1 there is no way in hell he can assure us there wont be another devastating attack if the U.S. makes the "right" choice and reelects Bush/Cheney. They really don't have total control of the situation.

Problem #2 there is no way in hell he can have the smug confidence to say there will be an attack on Kerry's watch. Zel Miller shredded Kerry for tearing down the commander in chief. Well Cheney is doing exactly the same thing to a potential commander in chief. Hypocrites.

"As to your other complaints, if 200+ vets come together to voice their opinion about a candidate, who are you to say they're wrong?"

Uh the vets that were actually on John Kerry's boat and served under him for starters. One of the Swift Boat Vets in the ads is on video tape praising his courage under fire eight years earlier. If you side by side that tape with the Swift Boat commercial its obvious he is lieing in one of them.

But I'm not gonna defend Kerry's record, it is kind of pathetic. All I ask if he is going to be raked over the coals for it then George W. deserves the same treatment. He was arrested for Cocaine possession in Texas, he got off with six months community service thanks to connections and it was wiped off his record. If it has been a black guy or a poor guy it would have been a felony conviction and his political career would have been over before it started.

He used family connections to get in to the Air National over hundreds of better qualified applicants, he apparently flunked the pilots aptitude test, scoring 26.

He moved to Alabama without getting it approved with his Texas unit. In Alabama he was mostly partying, drinking, doing coke and not fulfilling his service. When the Guard instituted drug testing as part of the physical during this time he refused to take it since he would have been nailed for cocaine use. Refusing the physical resulted in his grounding and should have bounced him out of the guard and in to regular military service. And of course Bush political operatives were given unsupervised access to his Guard file so the docs on this really embarrassing stuff disappeared from his file.

"The RNC wants people to know that Kerry is the wrong choice. You expected them to go easy on him? You must be new here."

Wrong choice is one thing. Fear mongering and smearing is another. It just shows you what kind of hopeless pit of dispair this country is sliding in to because fear mongering and smear campaigns usually work, especially when the Bush team does it because they are EXPERTS at it. I really would prefer candidates campaign on their record and their platform, not on one cheap shot after another. Bush's record is pathetic, so is Kerry's so I guess it follows we get, as Joe Trippi calls it, "six second sound bites of mutual assured destruction" instead.

"As to the alleged smear on McCain, obviously it's not that big of a deal, since McCain spoke on

Re:Voters don't think

[bckrispi]

I agree that we can't pin all of our economic woes on the President (but let's admit it, we all do from time to time). Many of my beefs listed are the result of corporations exploiting their power - the same corporations that channel hundreds of millions of dollars into W's re-election war chest. I admit the bubble was going to burst regardless of who was elected in 2000. I am not an economist either, but your arguments sound valid. I'm not blaming Bush for the recession. My complaint is with how he is handling the results of it.

If I may provide an anecdote: I live in the Metro Phoenix area. We are home to many corporations with large vested interests in technology and IT. American Express, Honeywell, McDonnal Douglass, General Dynamics, Intel and Motorola all have a fairly large tech presence here. Needless to say, when the bottom fell out, our community was hit harder than many. Continuous layoffs, offshoring, and for those of us who were lucky enough to keep our jobs, we were faced with cancelled bonuses and severing of many significant benefits. The tech job scene here pretty much sucked for three years. One day, in 2003, the president paid a visit to one of the local community colleges do discuss his economic "vision" of the future for the Phoenix valley. That was the day that dubbya irrevocably lost my vote. His answer to our high unemployment rate: "More hi-tech education!!" At that moment, I realized that not our president has not a fucking clue about the current plight of the American middle-class technology worker. Tell the half-dozen or so PhD's that my company alone laid off that the solution to our problem is more education. In the four years of Bush's presidency, I haven't heard him mention once the issue of good, high-skilled, good paying jobs being shipped to Bangalore (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is a symptom of his greater problem; he runs away or avoids issues dealing with the economy. Anytime someone mentions it, you'll hear the same canned response: "our economy is strong, and my tax cuts are working". I called bullshit when he first said it, and I call bullshit nearly four years later as he keeps repeating it. I'd have more respect for the man if he would simply acknowledge that there are problems that need to be fixed.

Sorry if that turned into a rant, but it is getting kinda late over here :)

I know why

[metallikop]

Mostly because the facts are so skewed that this can't be placed in Documentary.

Re:I know why

[mrsev]

As I come form the eastern side of the Atlantic Ocean (Europe) I find it difficult to understand what the fuss is about. The headline says"...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."

The show 9/11 clearly states a point of view(In this case from Moore), dont like it make your own film. And so what , you have the freedom of speech and he has the right to use it. As regards the idea of truth. Are we to assume that all other shows, that night, depict the "truth".

Maybe because I come from a country where political debate is common and the people represented by a spectrum of views, I find this kind of pro/anti arguments a little strange.

The communist party says one thing (and most people laugh) the center-left says another, the center-right another. Nobody would expect a film to depict the Truth(Tm). Only with actual news programs are facts expected to be proved(editorial and comments are not).

I always get the impression form the US that they consider themselves to be the world experts on Democracy. To be quite honest I see little to be impressed about.

Um, thoroughly comtemplation?

[biffnix]

Was that supposed to be "thoughtful contemplation?" Perhaps before the good Commander posted that, he should have paused for a bit of thoughtful contemplation...

Joe G.
Bishop, CA

Dumb The Vote

[Foofoobar]

Considering how many average Americans vote out of raw emotion anyway, expecting them to intelligently dissect the issues is a little beyond their ability. Most of them can't even program the VCR.

And considering the fact that the winner will get to pick 3 supreme court justices (hence setting the tone for laws in our country for the next 20 years), it's no wonder this has degraded into a schoolyard brawl.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Picass0]

You can thank our 10 second soundbite news for this one. When is the last time you saw the evening news and really felt you knew the whole story after seeing a news segment? When is the last time you saw a real debate - not a shoutfest - a real exchange of ideas. Programs like Hardball are now the norm for political dialogue. Don't blame the voter. Blame the TV producers who go for the red meat instead of the truth.

Voters can only arm themselves with imformation when it is provided. Anymore the voters who care turn to (good or bad) the internet for more information.

Moore

[pHatidic]

People keep saying Moore's movie isn't a documentary because it's full of bias. This is a load of crap, all documentaries have bias. Everything ever written for that matter has bias. 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. That is the thing that pissed me off about this movie, that in the previous ones he and his film crew are taking all the footage, but in this movie its just him narrating his opinions on top of stock footage. It cheapens his message (which I agree with) and lowers the quality of the experience overall.

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: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.

FCC should allow it

[WaRtHaWg]

After all, the Swifties/Bush/Cheney have a 24 x 7 ad running. It's called Fox News.

Re:FCC should allow it

[cjf242]

Yes and Kerry has is 24x7 ad running. It's called CNN.. And before you say no. Two CNN commentators just joind the Kerry campaign, and they are still doing there shows on CNN

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.

Fair and Balanced

[ColdWetDog]

"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."

As opposed to all of the partisan commercials, and of course, the Fair and Balanced(TM)(C)(Patent Pending) "news".

Nice Sentence ending

[scotay]

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.

Since when have the American electorate ever shown thoughtful contemplation? We sell our presidents like soda. The electorate consistently rewards mud slinging (or fails to vote against it) and runs on emotion rather than reason. That's why we get the government we deserve. McCain-Feingold will never change this fact. Until people stop voting for the 2-party duopoly and stop rewarding the lies, this mess will continue.

helps or hurts?

[Anonymous Coward]

even if we assume it to be pure propaganda, would you say that a partisan filmmaker saying the president is wrong hurts more or less then the Vice President of the United States saying that if voters make the "wrong" choice in November, the terrorist boogyman is literally going to kill them?

Mccain-feingold

[dfenstrate]

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.

Not to mention it may very well be prohibited under the mccain-feingold act, a trashy unconstitutional piece of legislation if there ever was one.

Funny how the supreme court finds it more important to protect simulated child pornography (unimportant) and is okay with silencing political speech (the most important type!).

If someone ever finds the supreme court's balls, please return them to washington. They're desperately needed.

Moore biased?

[seasunset]

I find it funny when people say Moore is biased. Yes Moore is biased, just like 99.9% of the media.

The only reason Moore looks strange is because:
1. Is assumes honestly that he is biased
2. People are only used to see things in the media from an angle that is different (almost opposite?) from his (which is, BTW, probably even more biased than his)
3. Is style is different from the usually polished media.

Faren-hype 9/11

[FooAtWFU]

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

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[mattkime]

I've said it a few times now but...

sure, you're right. The Bush family doesn't have ties with the House of Saud nor are billions of dollars being poured into the pockets of the VP's former company.

also, Bush is really from texas...

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[pyros]

This wanker has been brought up so many times, and refuted just as many. Dave Kopel has very little difference to Michael Moore in that the majority of their content is editorial spin. Micheal Moore's movie has a lot of irrefutable facts. He spins them to suit his agenda. He leaves out stuff that makes it difficult to suit his agenda. Dave Kopel does the exact same thing in the other direction.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[EnderWiggnz]

but if you make a statement, like - oh - saddam hussein is in cahoots with al qaeada, or that there are WMD that are about to be used on the US, and they turn out to be... well... *false*... then it is a lie.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[stanmann]

You realize that the 9/11 commission concluded that Saddaam Hussein was in cahoots with al qaeda and that the best conclusion from the evidence on "invasion day" was that there were WMDs(and I believe there are) and that they would be used against the US.

When you are mistaken and draw a conclusion based on the best available information, you aren't lieing, you are mistaken.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[EnderWiggnz]

>here are extensive Iraq/Al Qaeda ties dating back
>to 1998 when Saddam offered political asylum to Bin
>Laden.

If there are, I'm sure that the Bush administration would have explicitly demonstrated this fact in every media outlet that would repeat the admin's claims.

and, there have been no credible reports that have linked the two.

why does reality hate america?

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[WindBourne]

Al Qaeda, esp bin ladin, has called for the downfall of Sadaam for about 10 years. They have never worked together. That is why Poppa Bush called for Sadaam to be left alone. He knew that Sadaam was keeping Al Qaeda at bay.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[scotch]

Even if it was just a mistake and not a lie, it should really be a politically fatal mistake. As leader of the country and commander in chief, it is Bush's responsibility to make sure we don't "accidently" invade another country. He bears the highest responsibility for a government frenzied into war when it is found that frenzy led to mistakes in intelligence and judgement. Add to this the fact that Bush had a pre 9/11 objective of invading Iraq, and you could rightly conclude that he didn't do just dillegence in ascertaining the veracity of any pre-war intelligence. That moves Bush's actions firmly toward willfull igornace, at least.

Bush should be apologizing profusely for the US aggression in Iraq. UN hearings are in order. Reparations should be made. Instead, we have a man that gets on TV and says that eventhough all the pre-war intelligence was wrong, we were still justified to invade Iraq. What does that make the US?

For the record, it appears the Democrat party has done America a great injustice and nominated a man who says he also would have invaded Iraq, knowing what we know today. Neither one is an acceptible president. Bush needs to go for punative reasons - either that or we start the impeachment in 2005. Defeat Kerry in '08.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[pHatidic]

Well this isn't a political ad. It is just critical of bush but doesn't support anyone else, so I don't see what the conflict of interest would be. /voting for Nader

War

[curtvdh]

It was the Republicans who decided to center this entire campaign around Iraq (proably to distract the sheeple from the appalling domestic issues). I think that Moore's decision is the correct one - show the populace that Bush's war is actually his weakest plank - not one on which he should be focussing...

Re:Hell yeah

[Max Threshold]

There aren't really that many Bush supporters. Do you know any? I've met about three. The official polls simply reflect how many votes Diebold is planning to give him.

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).

I eventually came to a decision

[palad1]

After scrutinizing thoroughly both candidates' proposition, my mind is set.

It was nor quick nor easy, but I'm really confident about my vote now.

GO NIXON!!!

My question:

[cliffa3]

Will it air on Disney?

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.

Cue...

[Anti_Climax]

The Michael Moore is a Dirty Liar flamewar...

Love the color scheme BTW...

Moore's video has really influenced me

[Jonny Ringo]

Its a tough call. But after watching his movie I'm still on the fence. I'm either going with Ralph Nader, or Michael Badnarik. I know what all you are saying. Voting for Badnarik takes votes away from Nader and lessens his chances of being in future debates. Well I'm sick of this tired old argument. So all of you naysayers, I don't want to hear it! You have to vote with your heart.

IANAA but...

[filipvh]

Thorough contemplation? Not meaning to flamebait but in this era of sound bites and "fair and balanced" news, how many voters are even capable of thorough contemplation.
Sure, Michael Moore plays the propaganda machine like a harp, but that doesn't mean his documentary shouldn't be shown on television.

Re:Question

[avandesande]

Bush brought this up when he said 'lets ban the 572s' Not a peep out of Kerry. He cries like a baby about the swift boat ads but he has benifited like hell from moveon.org soros and moore.
Is kerry going to cry like a baby when we face critizism from foreign countries?

You have to WONDER?

[Tsar]

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

You have to wonder?!? Of COURSE it does! What Michael Moore and his supporters have to decide is, are their reasons for removing George Bush so unquestionably righteous and so critical for the country's survival that they justify any and all means, including short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?

Political differences aside, I'd rather take four years with almost anybody as president than accept this kind of overt political manipulation as the new standard of behavior in American society.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Microlith]

Short circuiting the democratic process would be more akin to abusing those electronic voting machines.

This is broadcasting a political message in an attempt to influence voters. This is -pure- politics, and purely a part of the free, democratic process we claim to hold so dear (yet see abused every time.)

Re:You have to WONDER?

[revscat]

any and all means, including short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?

Just wondering: How exactly is airing a movie short circuiting the democratic process? Sounds like a robust exercise in free speech to me. And do you really think that Bush is so weak that a movie will be able to topple him after all his vast successes? Or perhaps maintaining the appearance of success is more important than ACTUAL success...

Re:You have to WONDER?

[WebTurtle]

In what way is this movie's creation and/or television broadcast akin to "short-circuiting the democratic process"??!!

• Creating or broadcasting a movie is not the same thing as when the Supreme Court decides who gets to be the next president as they did in 2000.
• A movie such as F-9/11 is an act of speech and as such is contributing to the democratic process of debate, something Americans don't engage in critically enough.
• If this movie engenders any response in viewers that leads them to the voting booth (no matter which candidate they choose) then this movie is strengthening the democratic process, which has been weak and in decline for decades.
• This movie cannot be considered "overt political manipulation" until the movie reaches out and starts bribing people or otherwise coercing them to behave a certain way. However, it certainly does try to influence people's opinions about what has been going on for the last four years, just like any other newspaper or magazine editorial.

This movie is not propaganda:

To denigrate this as propaganda is either naive or perverse, forgetting (deliberately?) what the last century taught us. Propaganda requires a permanent network of communication so that it can systematically stifle reflection with emotive or utopian slogans. Its pace is usually fast. Propaganda invariably serves the long-term interests of some elite.
This single maverick movie is often reflectively slow and is not afraid of silence. It appeals to people to think for themselves and make connections. And it identifies with, and pleads for, those who are normally unlistened to. Making a strong case is not the same thing as saturating with propaganda. Fox TV does the latter; Michael Moore the former.

(The beginning of history, by John Berger, The Guardian, August 24, 2004.)

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Buzz_Litebeer]

yes, but he was railing against a lie and slander with absolutely no facts to back them up, but people beleive them anyway.

Farenhieght 9/11 is different, it has facts everywhere, it just doesnt represent them in the best light for Bush.

So, a baldface lie, vs spun facts...

I would at least have spun facts because I can check up on them. If someone lies about something that they have absolutely no documentation or basis for, i cant check up on that.

I dont have a time machine to go to vietnam to tell if they are lieing, all i can do is look at teh documentation... which says they are lieing.

Micheal Moores Video you can look up, the facts are true, just perhaps not in the way MM presents them.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[ArcherB]

I think you're talkin' about 4 years ago, in florida, right?

That's exactly the type of "short-circuiting" we're talking about here. Fact is, Bush won every single recount, including those done privately. I don't care how many times you say that Bush stole the election, it will never make it 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).

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.

Presidents don't make jobs. In the best case, they can get the hell out of the way of the companies that do make jobs. I hate it that your friends don't have jobs, but perhaps you need to look elsewhere for answers. As for me, I just sold a business because I could not get quality employees. It became too big a hassle. Then again, in my 40 years, I have never been more than two weeks without a job, and never accepted unemployment checks, choosing a lower job until I could work my way back up instead. I guess its just a matter of choice.

Who is President simply does not affect jobs the way so many state, but I guess it does make some feel better if they have someone to blame for what is likely just bad luck.

Re:Not Fox

[WindBourne]

Actually, I could see Fox doing it. They go for money. By running the movie, they would control all the ads that are displayed and they could come on with commentary about the movie. IOW, turn it from semi-documentary to a true mocumentary.

It should also be noted...

[l4m3z0r]

That Moore will instead be seeking the best picture nomination. Doubtful it will win but would be extremely interesting to see a documentary win best picture. Considering the competition I don't think it would be completely impossible either.

Its obvious to me at least that he will have to edit out portions of the film in order to be aired on TV. I fully expect it to showed on AMC(american movie channel). I wouldn't be surprised if many stations picked it up. Its sure to draw a large group of viewers. Whether or not any advertisers will buy time slots during it is another question all together.

Lastly I'd like to add that while some call it emotive and propaganda and claim it would be detrimental to our political process I'm going to have to dissagree. While the film is over the top and largely misleading it is still the only thing out there that questions effectively our presidents leadership. Which NEEDS to be called into question in order for democracy to work. War time or not, leaders need to be questioned. Even if there is no basis or ground for questioning them. They need to explain themselves adequately and constantly otherwise we have no accountability.

I can see how why the USA sucks for Moore

[haggar]

Seeing as though all his documentaries have been released for the big screen, that he has received an Oscar for one of them, that his shows are all airing on TV and that even F. 9/11 will (probably) be aired on TV prior to the elections, the USA is treating Moore utterly unfairly. Obviously, censorship is rampant and this country is a police state where free speech is suppressed in the most brutal ways.

Poor Michael Moore.

Re:I can see how why the USA sucks for Moore

[sbirnie]

It's not a police state or censorship for a television station to decide not to air it because they worry about the image of their station or the loss of ad revenue or viewer ratings from the backlash that might occur from airing it. It's business - nothing more.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Using anothers fault and deception as a defense against your own is not the way to win a debate.

He lied about X
ohh yeah, well you lied about Y.

It does not change the facts X

BTW I despise both Bush and Moore. Both are propganda machines they prey on peoples willingness to believe distortions of the truth.

Moore's critics don't care about truth

[mabu]

Moore's critics are more concerned with exposing tiny little continuity issues in his film than they are getting to the truth. Almost every single one of the supposed "faults" they can find in the movie are trivial at best, and even more a perversion of reality than anything in F911.

I'm not saying I don't think the movie was biased. Of course it was, but trying to pick tiny aspects of unimportant sections apart is a distraction and doesn't diminish the significance of Moore's main theme which NOBODY can refute:
* There were some substantive conflicts-of-interest regarding the powers that presided over the 2000 election
* The Bush family has a suspicious relationship with the Saudis and has exhibited favoritism that was not in the best interests of America, and is possibly illegal
* Almost all of the politicians involved in spearheading the "war" don't have children serving and have inconsequential/nonexistent military service records
* While Bush's policies predominantly favor the rich, it is the poor who end up paying, specifically when it comes to military service

I could have done without Moore's commentary over Bush's classroom visit when the WTC was attacked, but nonetheless, that "seven minute segment" is something everyone in the country NEEDS to see.

All of this notwithstanding, there's probably not a snowball's chance in hell this movie would make it to network television prior to the election.

F911 is an extremely powerful film. Which is why the right wingers seek to discredit Moore at any cost. If it didn't have a lot of substance and truth in it, they wouldn't be so afraid of people seeing it.

Propaganda

[Sheepdot]

questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda

People are still questioning it?

Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections

There's your answer right there.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie, but there was a clear opinion expressed. F911 is material disseminated by an opponent to a poltical agenda, thus "propaganda" by definition.

It is entirely possible for something to be both truthful and propaganda. In fact, I'd venture to guess that most politically-biased material is truthfull. At least, efficient propganda is.

The only thing I took issue with was claims about the family ties between Bush and bin Laden. They are actually very weak ties and arguments. Specifically the one with the Carlyle Group. For more information on this, I would suggest checking out the following K5 Diary entry: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/8/2/121046/0201

Re:Propaganda

[thatguywhoiam]

The only thing I took issue with was claims about the family ties between Bush and bin Laden.

Don't be so sure just yet... Senator Graham just released a book that details a very specific occurrence dealing with the Saudi ties. Salon has a cover story today about it.

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:Liberal media is teh suck

[BAM0027]

So, what you're saying is that the media hasn't given enough support to this war effort? I find it very confusing to hear that the nation's media has been too liberal when the bottom line is that we are, and have been, supporting the president by virtue of the fact that we're still in Iraq.

I see the media presenting faux pas by both Kerry and Bush, though there seem to be more opportunities to needle Bush. Why's that? Is the media really leaving out Kerry's flubbs? Or is Bush really less articulate, less informed, and less balanced?

The only this that I can give Bush credit for is his leadership quality. I don't agree with his choices at all, but if he did make decisions that I agreed with, I'd be very confident that he would be able to make things happen.

Too bad he's a sexist, homophobic warmonger.

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.

emotions vs. thought

[rbird76]

If the elections had been about rational choices in the first place, the person who wrote the description of this posting would have a reasonable point. However, the main flash points of presidential elections (or at least the issues that seemed to have most affected voter opinions and outcomes) have little to do with rational selection of presidential candidates. Furloughs and Willie Horton and VP Quayle's National Guard service to Clinton's affairs to Kerry's "falsification" of his records (and perhaps job loss for GWB - depending on how much one believes he and his appointees have influenced it and in what way), elections have been focused successfully on emotional issues and displacing other (perhaps) more substantive issues.

Given this history, it makes sense for MM to try to do what he is doing, since it has been employed by others in slightly different ways to good effect. Let his opponents argue against it (and perhaps others counterargue it); maybe they don't want to, but give them a chance to. Showing F911 might help people to vote for GWB or Kerry for the right reasons - they can at least see what Moore claims, and what others say is untrue, and people can decide.

Then again, it may be moot, because I don't see him getting the time.

"Liberal" media is a lie

[slusich]

I don't feel that having F911 air is any more inappropriate then allowing all of the talk radio people continually talk about what a great man Bush is. It's all a matter of free speech, which should be protected. That being said, I have serious doubts that the film will ever be shown on a major network. The "Liberal Media" tag has been thrown around for far too long by people who are so far to the right they no longer understand where the center may be. The truth is that most of the media is controlled by large corporations who stand to gain nothing by allowing someone in office who might restrict them from growing their monopolies. For the last 4 years, the media has given Bush a free ride. No serious investigations have been done into his past, despite allegations of conduct much worse then anything Clinton was ever accused of. Bush has been allowed to change his position over and over again and still point the finger at Kerry for being indecisive. The total time spent airing the RNC vs. the DNC should show whose side the media really is on.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[haggar]

For the last 4 years, the media has given Bush a free ride.

Is this even true? Looking from Europe, I see that all the media are pro-democrat, except FOX. All the shows have Bush, Cheney and the rest constantly on the floor: Conan O'Bryen, Jay Leno, MSNBC.

FOX seems to attract a lot of indignation, but I question whether it's because it's so biased, or because it's the only one biased in a different direction. In other words: is it possible that hard-core democrats can't stand one single voice of opposition? It looked so, seeing some of the protests during the republican convention.

I am aware that my view is very unusual for a European, but I am a European who came from an ex-communics country, so I developed a refined smell for bullshit.

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:Presidents don't make jobs?

[FJ]

I'd say that any tax cuts & tariffs don't create jobs. The help give people more money in their pockets. Most people consider this free money despite the fact that they gave it to the government. As the old saying goes, "free money ain't got no home", people spend it. The money they spend goes to businesses. The businesses see an increase in sales, they then increase output, which mean more jobs. The more jobs, the more money people have. The only way the government creates jobs is to increase the payroll of the government. The best thing any government can do is to get out of the way of businesses who try and create jobs.

This isn't a new idea and Bush certainly did't think of it. I believe Regan, JFK (a democrat), & others did this long ago. The results were about the same. A mild boost to help stimulate the economy. I'd bet that if Gore were president he would have done the same type of thing & Republicans would be complaining.

The president can help the economy a little, but he can screw it up majorly. Too high taxes on the extremely wealthy or taxing a certain industry is typically the worst thing to do. The very wealthy can move to another country much more easily than you or I.

Picking particular industries is typically a bad thing to do. A while ago a very high tax was introduced on luxury boats manufactured in the US. As a result people stopped buying them or bought them outside the US. The industry pretty much colapsed in the US and many manufacturing jobs were lost. The net result was that the working class, not the rich, was really hurt.

If you want to know who really controls the economy, talk to Mr. Greenspan. If he were to simply step down the economy would take a serious hit. He is definitely more influential than Bush. Every time he speaks, you get news coverage followed by a news commentary on the impact to the stock market.

As far as debt goes. Yep. We have a big one. However, remember two things.

1.) As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the debt isn't nearly as big as it has been in the past. That means we are producing more than ever before. Think of it this way, which is worse. To be in debt $1,000,000 and be producing $2,000,000 worth of goods, or be in debt $1,000 and be producing $1,000 worth of goods?

2.) The worst thing that could ever be done would be to have zero debt. Since the first days of this country, Hamilton realized that a federal debt is a good thing and healthy. The amount that debt can be debated, but this country should have some amount of debt.

Re:Hell yeah

[funny-jack]

Hey, I guess you didn't get the memo, but this is politics.slashdot.org. We only post emotionally charged flames here, not well-reasoned arguments.

On the subject of propaganda...

[jdreed1024]

It's only propaganda if you let it be propaganda. In the age of the global internet, with hundreds of different news sources at your disposal (or accessible via your local public library), it's real hard to call something propaganda.

Flash back to World War II, for example. Consider the famous German propaganda broadcasters - they were on government-owned radio stations, broadcasting to the German people that England was about to surrender, and Hitler was marching through London. The average person had no way of knowing whether or not that was true. They couldn't go online to someone's blog showing the Allies storming the beaches at Normandy. They couldn't flip to FOX News showing German troops freezing in Russia. And they couldn't turn on AMC showing Steve McQueen jumping his motorcycle across the border. It was either accept what the government said, or die.

Nowadays, however, you can find hundreds of sites devoted to debunking Michael Moore. You can go look up the Congressional Record and see if all those people in F9/11 really did object to certifying the election results and if it was really true that no member of the Senate would sign their objections (it was). You can search newspapers and see old video clips and see if Moore really did edit Charlton Heston's speech in Bowling for Columbine (he did). You can see if the family Moore interviewed really did lose a son in Iraq (they did).

The days of newsreels in the movie theater are long gone. If you go to any movie and take what is says as fact (Be it Fahrenheit 9/11, I Robot, the Passion of the Christ, or the Pokemon movie), you're an idiot. Moore has said many times that he wants his movies to raise questions, not indoctrinate people. That's why I go to see them - to have my values and viewpoints challenged. But you can't suddenly base your entire life on them, any more than you should change your values based on someone coming up to you on the street and saying that your political party sucks.

I'm not a huge fan of Moore outside his movies - I think a lot of his speeches are grandstanding, and I thought he was kind of a jerk at the Oscars, but that doesn't mean he can't make movies that make you think. I mean, David Lynch makes good movies, but man I wouldn't want to spend 5 minutes along with him.

Re:On the subject of propaganda...

[StrawberryFrog]

It's only propaganda if you let it be propaganda. In the age of the global internet, with hundreds of different news sources at your disposal ... They couldn't flip to FOX News

Yes, but the percentage of Americans who let thier information on current events begin and end at fox "news" is what? Far too high anyway.

You say it's not Propaganda, millions of couch potatoes to lazy to change the channel or read something say "let it be". I say "you'll get the government you deserve, you cretins". Unfortunately, I'll get it too, even though I live in England.

Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[linuxrunner]

And now for the slow paintfull demise of Slashdot.

Let's get irrelavant and uniformed people to bitch about politics on a site that should be about technology and geekhood.

Yup, so let's see... there's a bunch of Germans and Swedish people bitching about a President they can not elect nor vote against.

This is just going to be useless bickering...

"The movie is full of lies!" vs. "The movie is SO true!"

Does the movie have lies... YES. Does it also have some truth.. YES. Until you yourself can admit this, you're not going to get anywhere or ever be better informed.

------------------

Oh, but that won't be it.... We'll have moderators split with their party ideals and mod up what they like and mod down what they don't. So intelligent posts will get modded down just because. And it won't matter what political party the poster belongs to, it will just happen.

------------------

In the end this whole "politics" section is silly... Let it die like the "radio" http://radio.slashdot.org/ section.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[Stevyn]

Well said. I didn't want to post and start a flame war. I've already noticed comments anti-bush being modded up and comments that are anti-moore being modded down. The bias here is getting pretty bad I think.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[Edax Rarem]

Let's get irrelavant and uniformed people to bitch about politics on a site that should be about technology and geekhood.

I think you took a wrong turn... this is: http://politics.slashdot.org

I disagree that this section is silly... it keeps all the politics OFF the Tech site.(hopefully)

So, please, stay on topic.

Propaganda of the 1980 Election

[mariox19]

I remember the Presidential election of 1980 when Ronald Reagan was running agains Jimmy Carter. (Some of us remember back this far!) It was a different world then. The US was shamed over the hostages in Iran, and many people worried about the perceived military superiority of the Soviet Union. Add to that the notion -- half-believed by some -- that the world might come to an end in the year 2000.

Now, many of you too young to remember all this might laugh in disbelief, but google the movie, The Late Great Planet Earth. This movie came out in 1979, and was basically a survey of the current world-political situation illuminated by the Bible's Apocalypse, the predictions of Nostradamus, and so forth. This movie got a lot of attention and play before the election.

At the time I was young and impressionable (12 years old), but I remember watching the movie on television (maybe cable) with my father and brothers and being scared out of my wits.

What does this have to do with the election? It was thought by many that Reagan was the only chance for America to regain power and respect on the world stage, thereby averting the triumph of evil and the likely destruction of the planet in a nuclear holocaust. Of course, this seems kind of crazy to me now. Nobody worries about such things. (Now kids and other impressionable people worry about some kind of ecological holocaust.)

I don't know how effective this movie was in getting some people to turn out to vote and vote for Reagan, and I'm sure it wasn't meant to be propaganda for Reagan, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was somewhat effective.

Michael Moore's movie could be as much hogwash as Nostradamus. That won't matter if it makes it to TV though. It will be the kind of propaganda that will make a difference. Personally, I think it is nothing but out-of-context "truths" carefully edited to promote lies. Whoever one wishes in the White House, no honest person could wish for this kind of propaganda to become a part of the American political scene. If that happens, it would be a worse thing than having the wrong guy in the White House.

Because Right wing people don't lie

[Anonymous Coward]

And Ann Coulter's book where she accuses everyone who was ever a democrat of Treason?

Or any other similar book?

How about the Swift Boat veterans, at least one of whom recived his bronze star for the same combat action that never happened that Kerry was awarded for. Or the one who stood next to Kerry eight years ago and praised his valor under fire during that same combat action that never happened?

How about those republicans who claim that the Clintons "may have" had up to seventy people murdered?

How about the 70 million dollar investigation of a sub-million dollar land deal where everyone lost money, and blow jobs? Compared to the indescretions of the company Cheney headed with many millions in mistated earnings, the subsequent defrauding of the government in no-bid contracts, and energy industry meetings the American people aren't allowed to know the substance of for no reason beyond "I would prefer not to."

Is Moore a paragon of unassailable objective truth? Hell no. But he's a lot better than those of opposing idiology. He's simply misleading. On the other side of the aisle, they're out and out making shit up with no basis in fact. That's the fucking crime in all this. And the republicans brought it on themselves. Just wait, since it looks like Bush is going to win. Why on Earth would the Democrats NOT adopt the exact same tactics as the republicans next time around?

Re:Because Right wing people don't lie

[gfxguy]

I'll accept your counterargument when you prove two wrongs always make a right.

While I may like Ann Coulter, for example, I don't deny she's a fact twisting, liberal bashing shrew, but I agree with most of the major points she makes.

The difference is that M.Moore defenders generally think he's some sort of left wing god and can't admit that he decieves and twists facts, and that everybody ought to see his movies because they're so fact filled.

The difference is I'd never recommend Ann's book to anyone as some sort of definitive source of facts.

The difference is one of us is realistic.

Thoroughly contemplation???

[fpillet]

Sure... Who still believes that people's emotions are not being used to manipulate them?

Making people think that Saddam was associated with 9/11 was one very emotional way to win hearts for a caseless war. The Jessica Lynch story is another forged one made specifically to play with emotions. There are hundreds of other examples...

Also, gloryfiying the army while refusing to show dead soldiers is another way to play with emotions, or actually prevent them.

Let it be clear: as much as any others, Americans are being manipulated by their politician AND mainstream media. You'd better prepare for it to get worse in the next two months..

I *LIKE* nasty, dirty flaming campaigns

[Tri0de]

Thhe fact that this is a underhanded flamefest is a Good Thing, IMO.
If Kerry thinks the leaders of other countries are going to be any nicer than thhe WORST that Rove and the swifties can throw at him he's nuts. Welcome to the big leagues, John.
But then I'm a Libertarian and so I KNOW my party is going to lose, so let 'em rogh each other up. There really is no hope until we shitcan the two party system and Greens, Libertarians and everyone else can have an actual reason to VOTE for someone they give a crap about.

Re:I *LIKE* nasty, dirty flaming campaigns

[DarkSarin]

good for you.

I really think that us that identify with the libertarian philosophy are going to have a REALLY hard time getting a candidate we like (and this year's lib candidate just doesn't have what it takes.

Or maybe, just MAYBE, the facts stand against Bush

[revscat]

Or maybe more people than you realize that Bush is a bad president. Maybe it has nothing to do with "bias" and everything to do with "intelligence" and "critical thought." Just maybe, just maybe, many people have very good, substantial reasons for disliking Bush, and labelling it "bias" is just a cheap way for some to avoid having to face that reality.

Michael Moore

[Reality Master 101]

I can't prove this, but I highly suspect that Michael Moore has gained Bush more votes than he has cost him.

People generally hate obviously unfair propaganda. Michael Moore has done more damage to the left than anything the GOP could have done.

What I always find interesting about the left is how they sabatage themselves. Look at all the ridiculous things they say about Bush... comparing him to Hitler, saying that he's out to kill as many people as possible, that he wants to poison everyone, on and on. I remember exactly the same thing happening with Reagan. The things they were saying about him were insane. (Literally, saying things like, "He WANTS a nuclear war!!").

The left seems to do this far more than the right. The naive left starts believing all this weird crap and alienates the middle. Of course, the GOP has the religious right spouting weird nonsense, but not nearly to the degree that the left does.

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.

Hurting the process?

[fw3]

By the exercise of first ammendment rights?

I think not. Yes Moore is bombastic, biased etc. His *facts* seem to be pretty well done, however he's certainly chosen to lay them out to best make the point he's trying to make. This is something that the 'free press' in our nation does all the time. usually when cornered they even admit it.

It's also as likely to bolster Bush's supporters with the degree of venom that Moore brings to his subject and protrayal.

Does any of that matter a lot to me? No, Once I saw GWB in his Tux say:

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

...

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.

And as far as even-handed, I'll take even Moore's work over the 'swift boat veterans for truth(sic)' group, many of whom had nothing bad to say about Kerry, and some of whom earned medals in the same engagement that they now accuse him of lying about.

So Moore 'hurting the process' vs a group that has gotten advice from a (now resigned) administration (US-tax-paid-for) attorney ??!

No comparison. One is clearly using presentation to make a point, the other has clearly broken the rules in recieving material support from actual administration employees and is full of people who can't make up their minds whether they liked Kerry or didn't depending on what office he was running for at the time.

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 :)

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.

Why the Slashdot front page?

[mattmcarroll]

This is an article that should have been posted *only* to the newly-created Politics section of Slashdot.

Re:Hell yeah

[hypnagogue]

Who is President simply does not affect jobs the way so many state, but I guess it does make some feel better if they have someone to blame for what is likely just bad luck.

Actually, it's not so much bad luck as it is bad choices on the part of Wall Street. The reality: the dot-com boom created unsustainable jobs based on poor business models. For 2 straight years, the economy operated at a few hundred thousand jobs beyond full employment. You all remember it well -- being offered absurd sums to go work for a company that had no product, no customers, and no plan to change that situation. The economy was burning VC money -- and the fed wouldn't step in to fix it.

Now, in the crater of that foolishness, we have finally recovered to near full employment... and folks would like to panic and declare failure. You want to create jobs: great! You do it by being sensible with your money, and demanding the same from your employer, your vendors, and your investments. Anything else is a crap shoot.

The President doesn't move the economy -- you do.

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:Oh yea..

[BlueStraggler]

What do people that have too much money want? Power.

Ironic, considering this is exaclty Moore's thesis.

Is there a single shred of political coverage in the American media that doesn't qualify as propaganda? How many Americans still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11? How many Americans give a rat's ass about the fact that their nation has been transformed into a police state in which fundamental rights are suspended because they are in a "state of war"? A war against an improper noun, which means there is nobody to surrender, negotiate, or lose (war on drugs, anyone?), which means you can count on it being eternal.

There's nothing but propaganda from here on, friends.

Welcome to Politics

[StormyMonday]

American style.

• Joe Coors smuggles anticommunist tracts into the Soviet Union. Nobody cares.
• Ross Perot makes TV infomercials attacking NAFTA. Nobody cares.
• Richard Mellon Scaife founds and funds right- wing think tanks. Nobody cares.
• Sun Myung Moon funds a money- losing newspaper that becomes known as the "voice of the Republican Party". Nobody cares.
• George Soros funds a "liberal talk radio network". The right wing screams like a roomful of little girls at a horror movie.
• Michael Moore makes a movie that shows George W. Bush in a less than flattering light. Suddenly it's the End of the Republic.

I see a bit of bias here.

My brother is a fanatical Clinton- hater He has dozens of "documentaries" on the Clintons' numerous crimes, including mass murder. The only difference here is that Moore is a talented filmmaker who sticks to the facts, as opposed to a hack who just makes stuff up. The Right has trouble attracting artistic types; it's pretty obvious which side of the aisle is telling artists "You can't do that!"

BTW, the only error of fact that I've heard of being sustained was that the story was "The Pet Goat", not "My Pet Goat".

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

I dont consider the Iraq war immoral. I consider it overdue. I have been bitching since Desert Storm I that we left the Iraqi people out to dry. It was about time we had the guts to finish the job, give the Iraqis a chance to live in peace with a democracy of their own choosing.

To me, its a big deal, and this is from someone who has actually served in the military, and was raised in a military family with a father that served in Korea and Vietnam. I am more than a little aware of the risks and the costs, and in my opinion, it is a small price to pay.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Jett]

Are we in fact winning? I hadn't noticed what with 1000+ dead troops in Iraq and no links found to al-Qaeda and no WMDs and Osama bin Laden still on the loose and hundreds of children being blown up in Chechnya and airplanes being blown up in Russia and the anthrax killer never found and the Taliban regaining power in parts of Afghanistan and bombings in Bali and Turkey and Moscow and Madrid and...

Re:Hell yeah

[mattkime]

Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.

I really doubt that is an accurate reflection of the current state of the job market. We've been in a recession long enough that many people without jobs are no longer being listed as unemployed. Further, many people are underemployed or working for less money than they were a while back.

Congradulations for such a stellar work record. You're lucky and a rare exception. But don't point to those of us who have bad luck and say it solely our fault.

Also, Bush clearly hasn't helped the economy. Look at gas prices - which are a result of the instability in Iraq. Thats the simplest example I can provide.

Re:Which ones?

[powerlinekid]

Have any sources of your own to prove this?

"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.

I say let it air

[SuperKendall]

I am in the camp of believeing F9/11 is propoganda of the worst sort. Some of the stuff he did in Bowling really irked me, and he continues in the same vein.

That said, I say let it air. The people that are so weak minded that a Moore documentary would sway them are probably not the ones headed to the polls anyway...

But it also could backfire. If you piss off enough apathetic conservative people you might drive even more conservatives to the voting booth.

Michael Moore is a genius

[Schnapple]

Michael Moore is a genius and is good for America.

I'll explain.

He comes out with Fahrenheit 9/11. It's full of things. It's a very effective piece of propoganda. And there's almost nothing in it which is false or a lie.

It's been my experience that it's by and large intelligent people who go see his films. Think about it - it's the intelligent people who will give his work the time of day. It's been my experience that the people who say "he's a damn dirty liar and I won't support that" haven't done their research and are on the whole the ones who would rather not hear anything he has to say.

Consequently it's these same intelligent people who walk out of the theater saying "wow, that was pretty bad for Bush & Co. - but I bet it's only one side of the story". And it is.

Moore tells you about the VA Hospitals Bush closed down, but not about the ones he opened up.

Moore tells about the opinon piece that says Gore won, but he doesn't tell you about the dozen stories that say he lost.

Moore tells you about the judges Bush couldn't get appointed, but not about the ones he did.

People have made it their goal to point out the one-sided arguments in the film while others have pointed out the fallacies in those arguments against the film.

56% of Americans have either seen the film or plan to see the film. There's no way in hell that 56% of Americans are informed about politics. So they learn a lot from Fahrenheit 9/11. Then they learn a lot more from the people against F911. Then they learn even more from the people who are against the people who are against F911. And they decide for themselves who they want to believe more. Or more importantly they decide for themselves which information is important to them.

And then they're informed. In ways they never would have been before. I wouldn't know most of this stuff if I hadn't seen the film and then read all the debates. And I wouldn't have read the debates if it weren't for the Internet. Hell, Michael Moore used footage he got from the Internet to make the movie.

And that's why Michael Moore is a genius. Thanks to him there's a ton more informed voters out there, if for no other reason than people need to see the movie and get their ducks in order in order to hate Moore and his arguments. In many ways he's leveled the playing field.

Re:bite me asshat.

[JWW]

Just a note in relation to your comments on Russia.

Personally I think that they are going to make our efforts in Afganistan and Iraq look like a picnic. I am fully expecting an action more reminicent of Sherman's march than anything else. This is truly a global war on terror, and while Michael Moore and you can debate how its going here, you won't have any say in what the Russians do, and I think it will be a very dramatic statement.

Re:It's possible to be truthful without being hone

[hey!]

I see your point. In an ideal world, which I know we aren't living in, I'd like to see something like the standard placed on peer reviewed scientific articles applied to political information. Science is full of controversy and vociferous disagreements, but articles still manage to get written from a particular viewpoint. The rule is you just can't ignore possible alternative interpretations of the facts, much less facts unfavorable to your position. You have to state your opponent's position as strongly as he would, then refute it and show that your position is better.

It's just an idle dream, I know.

Re:bite me asshat.

[macdaddy]

How about "F***'ed your Fellow Vietnam Vets", or "French owned."

Do you think it was wrong of Kerry to come home from Vietnam and tell Congress we should end the war? Ask the American people if anyone knows why we're in the war to begin with? Tell Congress of the atrocities and war crimes he witnessed. Don't play "Oh it never happened, We'd never do that" game with you. We all know god damned well that it did happen. Kerry didn't turn his back on his fellow soldiers. He turned his back on the administration that got them in that Fucked up Ware to begin with. He tried to get his fellow soldiers out of that hell hole before more lives were lost in vain. That one hell of a noble thing to do in my book. And you can bet that he did it knowing full well that piss ants like yourself would never let him forget it.

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.

Re:Michael Moore

[isaac]

People generally hate obviously unfair propaganda.

Right, which is why "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were so unsuccessful.

I believe you've got it completely backwards. People hate substantive discussion of issues. People hate nuance. Nuance and intelligent discussion = nerd. And people really hate nerds. Take Al Gore, please!

Pro wrestling has more fans than "Meet The Press" and image triumphs over substance every time. Unfair propaganda works.

-Isaac

So then, vote libertarian

[bokmann]

All the political discussion on slashdot recently, yet very little discussion about the libertarian party.

I am almost to the point where I could consider myself a libertarian... The party is basically fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

You can read more about the libertarian presidential candidate here:

http://www.badnarik.org/

Caution - some of the position papers make far too much sense. Granted, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2004, but I think he has a hell of a good chance of increasing awareness of the party and its platform.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[GeckoX]

Yes, you're right, the movie doesn't show all of the footage of all of the events that transpired during the making of the movie. Yes, you're right, the movie isn't 6 MONTHS LONG. Yes, you're right, it's a MOVIE.

And yes you're right, he didn't SHOW that part, but he did explicitly STATE it (as geekster already mentioned)

You're using the EXACT SAME propaganda tactics to try to discredit f/911 as you and others are charging Moore himself with using.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[orasio]

BTW I despise both Bush and Moore. Both are propganda machines they prey on peoples willingness to believe distortions of the truth.


That's spin too, by expressing the same opinion on the two people, and showing a similarity, you are showing them as if they were equal. That would not be a fair comparison, because although his credibility might be questioned, Michael Moore is not responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and Bush is. That is spin too, it is a fact that he sent an armed force to invade Irak and Afghanistan, and that they killed lots of people, many civilians, then my opinion is that it is wrong, and another one's would be that it was necessary. Of course, we as humans cannot be objective, because that's not the way we understand the facts.

That someone publishes something "with a spin" is not wrong, it is inevitable. The wisdom is in reading from many sources, so that spin can be cancelled, and you can get your own interpretation. But showing the facts with a spin is not the same as lying. Journalism is mostly related to opinion, just because it is a documentary it doesn't have to be objective, because it is made by someone who does have an opinion. In your advantage, MM tells you that he hates bush, so you know which way he is biasing his documentary, and it is easier to digest it. It would be much worst if he portrayed himself as an objective journalist, and then deceived you.

holy crap! You complete debunked him!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoah! That's some pretty damning evidence. Michael Moore took something printed in a newspaper and flashed it on the screen as if it had appeared elsewhere in a newspaper? Now I'm suspicious.

For instance, now I am wondering if Bush Sr. really is acting as a private consultant (through his employment in the Carlyle Group) to the Saudi government while still receiving weekly CIA briefings. Could it actually be possible that our CIA intelligence is being used to guide Saudi Arabia in how it conducts its affairs?

PBS might do it

[MoFoQ]

I think it's best to air it on PBS primarily because they aren't mandated to censor it.

Maybe even Comedy Central (this also depends on what side of the coin/river u are on) will air it; hell they did air the South Park movie uncensored once before.

Or if he really wants more ppl to see it, Michael Moore might as well release a bitTorrent of it (official one) or webcast (or both). It'll get /.'ed so fast; it'll make Superman look slow.

Sure!

[cynic10508]

Of course he can air 9/11 on TV! We'll just need to show Swift Boat ads during all the commercials and have Ralph Nader present it. That way everyone gets their propaganda!

Re:bite me asshat.

[terrymr]

I'm not sure what your point is, how many were there before 9/11 ... there hasn't been enough time to tell if there's going to be more attacks.

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 because the first attacker wins

[laird]

"The success of negative campaigning isn't just the public's fault, either; it's partly because both candidates this time really do suck."

The success of negative campaigning is due in large part to the press being pathetically unwilling to do their job. Instead of determining and reporting the truth, they take the easier route of "he said/she said" reporting where they accurately repeat whatever people say, no matter how absurd. This rewards people who are willing to lie with great authority, because the general public never hears an informed, objective perspective, only two opposing partisans presented as equals.

For example:

"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." -- George Bush, quoted in the Washingon Post, May 31, 2003

What the US press did not do is investigate the claims, and provide some context. Specifically, they accurately reported what Bush said, but they didn't bother to do the research to determine that, in fact, Bush's statement was not at all representative of what the intelligence community thought of the trailers.

In the UK, where there's some competition in the press (so they have to actually do real work), they did the (trivial) research of actually asking intelligence people whether the claim was true, and determined that:

*At the time of this statement, the U.S. position was that some analysts thought that the trailers could possibly have been used for menufacturing weapons. --Politex, 06.09.03

Note that in the UK, the press researched the issue and reported their results, while in the US the press only reported what Bush said.

So, because the US press is lazy (and/or fearful of being accused of being "unpatriotic" for pointing out when government representatives lie) the result was that the people in the US believed that biological weapons labs had been found in Iraq, when in fact all that was found were helium production trucks used to fill balloons.

Personally, I really like the idea of he said/she said/we said. That is, after reporting accurately what everyone says, they should do their jobs and tell us what's really going on.

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

The War on Terror needs to be fought, maybe differently than it has been, but in terms of the US, things are going pretty well.

Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America.

The "war on terror" is a con being used to justify military spending and to restrict our rights. It is precisely the sort of thing Orwell wrote about fifty years ago.

America is not at war. There is nobody to fight.

Exactly

[paranode]

Which is why we shouldn't elect Kerry. He said that Saddam was a danger that needed to be removed and that he had (and used) weapons of mass destruction.

Or were you talking about someone else? Or maybe you were talking about the Kerry who voted for invading Iraq before he voted against it? Or when he said we should support our troops now that they're there before he voted against funding for them? Perhaps you just meant Bush who's been saying the same thing John Kerry was before the war, only he hasn't changed his mind.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

what's going on in Russia isn't Al Queda at all, it's just the latest string of attacks by Chechnian revolutionaries

How do you make this conclusion? There's overwhelming ongoing data regarding Al Quada's operations in Chechnya. Many of the 9/11 terrorists were originally recruited to go to Chechnya. There are financial ties, operational ties, recruiting ties, etc. It's rather shocking that anyone would make a comment otherwise - it's like claiming Chirac isn't French.

On a more humerous note, it appears that Putin has adopted the Bush doctrine. From Yahoo news this hour:

Russia is prepared to make pre-emptive strikes on "terrorist bases" anywhere in the world, the Interfax news agency cited the country's chief of staff as saying.

Pre-emptive action? Against bases ANYWHERE? Iran? Iraq? What, and not wait for thirty UN resolutions and negotiations? Good grief, what next?

Re:bite me asshat.

[say]

Chechnian rebels are also Islamic fundamentalists

Understanding the world in terms of Christianity/Islam isn't going to get you anywhere. The Chechnian rebels are now Islamic, but they used to be secular - non-religious. They are Islamic now, but they are obviously different from Al-Qaeda. They have territorial claims, Al-Qaeda has not.

Actually, the way the Russians have treated the Chechnian people makes quite good soil for fundamentalism. Just like the US and Iraq, I suppose.

religion and voting

[No-op]

As a christian, I can honestly say that I think bush mouths all the phrases he thinks conservative christians would like to hear. I think if you look more deeply into his actions, you see someone who has no idea about any of the basic tenets of christianity, and is just playing a game to garner votes.

This holds true for pretty much all politicians, really, but I find bush's efforts in this regard to be quite appalling. I certainly don't want to vote for Kerry (who has always been a loser) but I'm voting against bush, more than anything.

That being said, I know way too many people voting for bush just because he says he's an "evangelical christian". I usually suggest that the actions of jesus sound like scary liberal hippie communism, which draws blank stares.

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.

Slashdot poli-speak

[jeff13]

Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda,...
---
Hey wait Slashdot...
propaganda must come from an agenda, a group. One fat guy from Michigan is NOT propoganda. It's called a documentary stupid.

See how CNN brainwashes you? They made all of America define Moores movie as propoganda without even checking thier dictionaries.

Ann Coulter is a propagandist. Micheal Moore represents himself and that's it! Buy a frellin' clue Slashdot.

Re:Hell yeah

[gcaseye6677]

Call me a cynic, but I have a hard time believing that a site called anyonebutbush.com is an objective source of facts and information. If you want to read such a site for your amusement, go right ahead, but to cite it in an argument as a factual source will not convince anyone who was not already a Bush basher.

Re:Someone already aired Fahrenheit 911

[mabu]

/yawn

Another authoritative commentary on Cuba by someone whose only first-hand knowledge of the country comes from watching re-runs of "I Love Lucy." Gotta love armchair pundits.

Re:Michael Moore

[Viking Coder]

Start quoting some sources for those things you think liberals say.

I'll match you punch for punch.

The right says ridiculous things about the left, like Preisdent Clinton murders people who get in his way.

It's all nuts.

Re:bite me asshat.

[torpor]

uh huh ... so, like, the war on invasion by the aliens is going pretty well too, since none of that seems to be happening.

sheesh. baaah!

The answer is extremely simple

[Rui del-Negro]

If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"?

Yes. Documentaries are not statistics and are not reporting. A documentary is simply a movie based on real people and real events, period. Documentarists have always presented their point of view - in fact, most people agree that that's preciely the point of documentaries (Moore actually got the highest american award for best documentary, remember?).

Unfortunately, some people (like you) think that the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with. Maybe you should apply for a job with the KGB (or, the way things are going, with the Bush administration).

If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to finance your legal expenses (as long as they don't have to go public). For some reason no-one has...

And if you think that "the other side of the story" stands up, go make a documentary showing it (it's not as if you need a huge budget or a big crew). Again, for some reason no-one has...

RMN
~~~

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Alaska Jack]

1. "I respect your incomprehension."

Thanks. The world is a cold, inhospitable place for us dumb guys.

2. In your part about lies vs. point of view, you very carefully avoid any mention of Kopel's "Lies in Fahrenheit 911." You also blur the distinction between opinion and fact, which is, not coincidentally, the very thing Moore is criticized for. In fact, that is the main complaint: That Moore is a master at taking half-truths and carefully worded assertions, and putting them together in a way that leaves viewers with misleading insinuations as to the *actual* facts. In other words, that he deliberately gives false impressions without actually lying.

So in terms of outright lies, there's not very much to point to. But that's not to say there's *nothing* to point to -- there certainly is. For example, the letter to the editor in the newspaper, doctored to look like a news article. Or the placque in Bowling for Columbine that doesn't say what he said it did. Or the way he edited Heston's speeches to make it sound like he was saying something he wasn't.

I guess what I just don't understand about the whole thing is that Moore isn't just lying to ME. He's lying to YOU, and all his audience. Go read The Truth About Columbine, and 59 Lies in Fahrenheit 911, then come back and tell me Moore deserves any loyalty from the fans whose intelligence he so obviously despises.

3. The key word in your lengthy discourse about "standing" is "AFAIK." Look, not to be too blunt about this, but the F in that phrase is, well, not very F.

I don't have the time or inclination to give a discourse about the American legal concept of "standing." But Google is your friend, my friend, and through it you might have learned that not just anyone in the U.S. can sue anyone for any reason. Most pertinently, I can't sue Moore just because he lies in his documentaries. I would have to show standing -- i.e., that *I* was tangibly harmed by those lies.

So to bring it back around full circle, you claimed that the fact that no one is suing Moore is evidence that what he says must be true. I'm pointing out that that assertation is simply wrong.

(To anticipate your next argument: Yes, Bush could conceivably claim to be harmed by the lies/distortions, but under American law would almost certainly lose any lawsuit based not on the validity of his claims but on the simple fact that he is a leading political figure.)

- Alaska Jack

I wonder....

[bryan1945]

After reading many of the comments so far, it makes me wonder what the response from the /. community (or as more accurately seems, factions) if Moore had done a comparable film with another subject. Say, an anti-Pres. Clinton piece? Or an anti-Linux/Linus piece? Or an anti-European Union piece.

It would be interesting to compatre peoples' reactions with F9/11 to these other hypothetical movies, and see if they would really keep their views (Moore is a lying hack, Moore is just telling the truth) if he suddenly attacked a position they espoused (say Clinton for those who like Fahrenheit, or the EU for those who like the EU) or disliked (say Clinton for those who didn't like Fahrenheit, or the EU for those in the US).

Would be an interesting study to have everyone watch 3 or 4 F9/11-like movies on different topics, then read the responses and see if we could categorize people into groups:
Likes Moore no matter what
Dislikes Moore no matter what
Anti-Bush no matter what
Pro-Bush no matter what
Anti-Clinton no matter what
etc.
until "Views actually swing depending on material" and "Actually influenced by the film(s)".

I think it would be an intersting exam of ideaology vs. critical thinking, especially for those who views have suddenly been attacked.

Re:bite me asshat.

[William R. Dickson]

I've actually been keeping the terrorists away by keeping this banana stuck in my ear...

Contemplation of last-minute emotions

[sugarmotor]

1. "Thoroughly contemplation" is what is needed :)

2. And no, it is not a "controvercial" movie.

3. And, no, no one has "to wonder" whether "on the eve of an election [it] helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions". Invoking last-minute emotions seem to be the norm nowadays. Just doesn't get exposed -- only in spectacular cases such as this one.

Stephan

Re:bite me asshat.

[rhakka]

Are you trying to show a possible trend with a single data point?

Well gee, I thought we'd have INFINITE ATTACKS PER MINUTE after 9/11, so YEAH, we're doing GREAT!!!!!

Or maybe I thought that since the last terrorist large scale action on our soil (oklahoma city 1995) occurred six years earlier, that we could expect another attack within six years! We're over halfway now, so far so good huh!

Or maybe I thought that sine the last FOREIGN large scale attack on our soil (pearl harbor, 1941) that we'd see another one within SIXTY years.

What are you, an idiot? We're doing pretty well because there hasn't been another attack here? Tell you what; when we get Iraq calmed down, let me know, and I'll agree we've done anything to calm down terrorism. Until then, all we know is that we haven't been attacked again yet. We are in no way secure from such an attack, nor will we ever be. Pretending we are is just wishful thinking.

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...

OT: Pat Buchanan is not a good judge...

[Big Sean O]

Pat Buchanan backed Joe McCarthy and Barry Goldwater, so his idea of right and left is a bit right of center.

Pat Buchannan thought the US should've made a deal with Hitler: Stay out of Western Europe and attack Russia all you want. Or at least that's what it implies here...

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/patbuchanan1.html

So, since I've invoked Godwin's law, I'll STFU.

Screw the political process- this will hurt Dems!

[Xeger]

After five years of making thoughtful and informed posts, I have some karma to burn. I'll regret having posted this when I see that "-5 Troll" beside it later today -- but I figure, a guy's got a right to let off some steam.

I'll let you in on a little secret of mine. Liberal as I am, I enjoy tuning into Fox. I like reading the RNC's website. I have fun watching the masters of hypocrisy and intolerance. They say some mighty funny, outrageous things! I wouldn't want these crackpots in charge of my country, my legal system or even the corporations in which I own stock -- but that doesn't stop me from laughing at 'em. For every three logical things they say, they just have to throw in a zinger -- a racist slur, a completely inappropriate personal attack, a tremendous fallacy, a made-up statistic, or what have you. And I find that funny as all hell!

To all of the Bill O'Reillys of the world, for the Rush Limbaughs, the Ed Gillespies and the Zell Millers, I would like to say: nyeah nyeah nyeah, we have our own pundits now!

(I apologize that all of those links are to biased sources; I tried to find more impartial sources for my quotes, but "unbiased" news sources tend to shy away from reporting on the more outrageous things our politicians and public figures say, because they would quickly gain a reputation for being biased for having done so.)

Yes, now we progressives have our own crackpot figures who make completely unfounded statements with fallacies you could drive a truck through. They twist words, edit footage and tinker until the truth looks juuuuuuust right. Like their regressive counterparts, they're darned good at it. I honestly enjoy them as entertainment, I do.

Aside from giving me great insight into Bush's and Cheney's motivations (money) and Bush's personality (insecure, attention-seeking jock who aims to please his parent figures), Fahrenheit 9/11 was funny, tragic, moving, a reminder of all we lost that day and all we've lost since: collective innocence, blissful ignorance of the effects of our actions abroad, good men in uniform, personal freedoms. Looking through the bull puckey about Saudi air travel privileges, tuning out the anti-war propaganda, I sat in the theater and saw a decent movie.

But this movie did not sway my political position any more than watching The O'Reilly Factor would. This is because Michael Moore, like all the rest of the pundits, makes entertainment. He tries to deliver a political message, but the message is almost always choked by his own hyperbole and willingness to sacrifice the truth in order to inspire outrage in his viewers.

If the intent of releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 ahead of time is to sway the minds of voters, I am afraid the stunt will backfire horribly. Most of the nation is already set in stone as to who they will vote for. The only votes left up for grabs are the precious, the few, the "swing votes." By definition, these people are independent, and like to think about their decisions before making them. They like to check their facts, and they are not easily swayed by appeals to sentimentality. If these people are forced to approach Fahrenheit 9/11 as a run-on political advertisement, they will rebel. They will scoff at the inaccuracies and ignore the redeeming social and political message of the movie. And that just might sway them enough to vote for the other side . . .

Just a thought.

For Great Different?

[ghost_crab]

"... 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."

Riiiigght, since it's so different from all the rational, fact-based and totally truthful informercials paid for by each of the wholly respectful campaigning parties...

Do you mean to infer that Senor Moore should be barred from showing his "emotion-influencing" film because he isn't a political candidate himself? And how is this any different from the plethora of other instances wherein Hollywood has poked its bulbous nose into election issues?

All the hullaballoo over this film is merely the result of carefully crafted propaganda. The man is entitled to his opinion. The People are entitled to watch it or ignore it, at their choosing.

I, for one, think he's full of himself. But he has the right to display his film to whomever wishes to see it, without interference from our reigning king or the apparent challenger to the throne [whether or no the two "front runners" will in the end be any different from one another in practical application of the office remains to be seen].

Guerilla Politics

[Mulletproof]

I'm a conservative. I think Michael Moore is a liar and freakin retard. BUT, I'll give him the go ahead to try and air his movie on TV... As long as the Swift Boat Veterans are allowed the same consideration and the bitching stops about who they are funded by. I mean, who here doesn't think Moore's movies and books aren't backed by similar political interests? I won't even get into the legality of such a connection, let alone airing it within 60 days before an election, but sure, it makes great fiction considering how many his credibility has been shot to shit in outright lies.

So let's air this crap, just drop any and all pretenses that it's nothing more than guerilla political advertisement and let everybody in on the game.

Re:Guerilla Politics

[JohnnyX]

I agree. We ought to add an amendment to the Constitution that lets people say whatever they want, whenever they want.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...just a thought...

Let People Decide On Their Own

[Izago909]

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

I don't recall any plans to stop airing Fox News or stop circulation of the NYT before the election. I'm sure, as always, most people have their mind set and won't even consider any other opinion. The movie has already got so much national recognition that people won't be fooled into watching it; with less than 30 seconds of viewing anyone should be able to figure out which film this is. Besides, if there was any doubt in a persons mind to the extent that a movie carried more weight than the words of the President, perhaps that person shouldn't be voting for Bush anyway. Have we devolved to the state where we can not trust the intelligence of the average voter, so appointed officials should decide what to forbid them to see?

Re:bite me asshat.

[CGP314]

How many terrorism related deaths have there been in the US since 9/11... The War on Terror needs to be fought, maybe differently than it has been, but in terms of the US, things are going pretty well.

"There's not a single bear in sight--the 'Bear Patrol' is working like a charm".

"That's specious reasoning,"

"Thanks, honey,"

"According to your logic, this rock keeps tigers away"

"Hmmm. How does it work?"

"It doesn't."

"How so?"

"It's just a rock. But I don't see a tiger, anywhere."

"Lisa, I want to buy your rock."


-Colin

Re:bite me asshat.

[Theaetetus]

Kerry came back testifying how horrible it was for him and his shipmates to have had to become war criminals, knowing full well that they weren't.

Did criminal actions take place during the war? Yes. Were those criminal actions performed by US Servicemen? Yes. Therefore, yes, they were war criminals. But Kerry wasn't coming back to say "Bob Jones - he's a criminal. Fred Murphy - he's a criminal too. Lock my fellow veterans up". He came back to say "this war and the policies behind it are wrong, it was started on a false premise, and criminal policies are being handed down as 'orders'." Kinda like the one in Iraq now - false premises (WMDs), and criminal policies (Abu Gharib).

He did throw his medals, or ribbons, or whatever at the whitehouse in protest, yet still manages to conjure them up today.

If you don't know what he threw - medals, ribbons, or whatever - how can you complain when he shows something? Maybe he's wearing the medals now, and he threw his ribbons (don't see him wearing his ribbons, do you?). Or maybe, as you say, he threw his 'whatever', and it's still lying on the Whitehouse lawn.

-T

A modest proposal

[The Conductor]

A simpler suggestion to the Slashdot masses...don't bother with any of it, the film, the critique, the counter-critique, the counter-counter-critique, the whole lot of it. Your time is better spent finding better sources of political analysis than a Hollywood-style movie.

Watching Winslet & DeCaprio cavorting around is entertaining and all (and the fact that both characters die by the end of the film is an extra bonus), and attention to historical detail makes a film seem more immediate and "puts you in the story," but if you want to know why Titanic sank, you should look elsewhere. Even if every detail is scrupulously correct, that doesn't make it useful. Why treat contemporary politics differently?

Re:A modest proposal

[16K Ram Pack]

I've met a few people who've seen Fahrenheit 9/11 (I'm in the UK) and I don't think one of them was a conservative.

Every person I can think of who has seen it was anti-Bush before they saw it and nearly all of them left-wing.

I doubt any of them bothered to check any of the references in the film - it was about someone they despised and could feel warm and cosy that here was *proof* of it.

Many Questions Raised

[tom's a-cold]

Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda

Look, if the Republican party starts claiming that the sun revolves around the earth, I'll see a posting on Slashdot that "many questions have been raised about the Copernican model."

No analysis of events is free of bias. News organizations that pretend to be fair are just being hypocritical. "Fairness" in that context generally means "in careful alignment with majority prejudices." The main reason that Moore gets more flak than others is because he's picking a fight with those in power.

This highlights a conservative bias I've often noticed: it's OK to say that you have rights. But to actually exercise them means that you're a troublemaker and fair game for character assassination or worse.

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

[khasim]

Semantic check:

"Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America."

Statistically - you are far Far FAR more likely to be killed on the highway then by a terrorist.

Statistically - you are more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.

(neither of those statistics include people killed in foreign countries)

So, there IS a terrorist threat to the citizens of the USofA. Just not much of one. But that RARITY in itself leads the media to cover it completely out of proportion to the likelyhood of it happening again.

Now, is there a terrorist threat to the USofA? No.

Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances will we overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy.

On the other hand, we can slip into a fundamentalist theocracy (see Bush and Co.) or a corporate-based fascist state. But that won't be because Osama did anything. That will be because WE voted for it and allowed it.

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

[Alaska Jack]

Statistically - Americans in 1941 were far Far FAR more likely to be killed on the highway then by a Japanese soldier.

Statistically - The were more likely to be killed by someone in their own family than by a Japanese soldier.

(neither of those statistics include people killed in foreign countries)

So, there WAS a Japanese threat to the citizens of the USofA. Just not much of one. But that RARITY in itself led the media to cover it completely out of proportion to the likelyhood of it happening again.

Now, was there a Japanese threat to the USofA? No.

Nothing any Japanese soldier could do would EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances would we overthrow our existing government and install a Bhuddist emperor.

On the other hand, we can slip into a authoritarian socialist (see Roosevelt and Co.) or a corporate-based fascist state. But that won't be because Hirohito did anything. That will be because WE voted for it and allowed it.

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.

59 Deceits

[dh003i]

See Fahrenheit 9/11: 59 Deceits. Documentaries are worthless crap. On many occasions, in Moore's film, he is misleading and deceiving, even cut-'n-pasting audio clips, or leaving out important conext.

David Kopel has been called into question by many, but his article illustrates there are problems with F/911.

Analysis from libertarians -- people who think Bush is a terrible President, and hate war -- has been critical of Moore. Search Lewrockwell.com for Michael Moore and Mises.og for Michael Moore.

Re:59 Deceits

[legirons]

"See Fahrenheit 9/11: 59 Deceits."

Indeed, and many of us have seen that website. Do you believe that its claims would stand up to the same level of scrutiny that we're applying to the original film? Every single person who references that website refers to it as "59 utter lies exposed", yet you can go through the list and see Dave Kopel admit time after time that the film was truthful and then object to changes of subject, or things he thinks should have been included, or alternative conclusions he thinks should have been reached.

That page represents the sum total of your evidence???

"In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore claims to support our troops. But in fact, he supports the enemy in Iraq--the coalition of Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda operatives, and terrorists controlled by Iran or Syria--who are united in their desire to murder Iraqis, and to destroy any possibility of democracy in Iraq."

So... obvious propoganda is bad?

Re:bite me asshat.

[dup_account]

Let's be more specific... How many terrorist deaths in the US did Iraq fund on 9/11? That would be 0.

How many terrorist related deaths in the US come from Iraq before we invaded them? Again... 0.

How many Assam Bin Ladens (SP) have been captured since 9/11? That would be 0.

Yep... War on Terror is a big success... Just like the war on drugs... the war on poverty... the war on .. oh, you get the point.

Re:bite me asshat.

[EnderWiggnz]

you've never let reality bother you, have you?

John kerry came back, and joined a group of veterans called the "Winter Soldiers" and testifies to congress as a representative of that group. To wit, his openning statement was:
---
I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....
---

He came back from Vietnam, and spoke Truth to Power. He spoke against an unpopular war. He pulled back the curtain on the atrocities that were occuring every day in 'Nam.

He did the right thing.

How you pervert this brave, heroic, selfless act into some treasonous account is beyond me.

We are asked this year to decide between a decorated war hero; who came back and spoke against the war he fought in, and a coward whose father got him a cushy spot in a champagne squadron, who couldnt even bother to show up between lines of coke.

i know exactly who i would want in the foxhole next to me, and it sure as hell isnt a coked up fratboy.

Discussions about Michael Moore are a distraction.

[Futurepower(R)]

One thing discussions like this have taught me is that there are a LOT of people who have very little idea what their government is doing. There is enough material about U.S. government corruption to make a hundred movies like Fahrenheit 9/11.

I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in war since the end of World War II. None of those people directly threatened the United States.

I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since the end of World War II.

Want to educate yourself about U.S. goverment corruption? See the two other movies and read the 35 books reviewed in this article: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

This is how it has been going:

Michael Moore: Parts of the U.S. government are very, very corrupt.

TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is a liar!

Other TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is not a liar!

Discussions about Michael Moore are a distraction. We should be discussing U.S. government corruption. For example, we should be discussing the U.S. government's relationship with Saudi Arabia that is unhealthy for both countries. There were only hints of that in Fahrenheit 9/11. The movie showed network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. Why was he doing that, aside from the fact that men sometimes hold hands in Saudi Arabia? Why are they so warm with each other that they hold hands in public? One clue: I think we can rule out any idea that Prince Bandar actually likes George W. Bush; that would be very much against Saudi culture.

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

Re:bite me asshat.

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

the anthrax killer never found

Wasn't it determined that the anthrax originated in our own (US) military biolabs? Isn't it a strange coincidence how the first person killed in the anthrax attacks was a nosy reporter who had just published an embarassing photo of Bush's daughter?

In other news, OJ continues his search for, "the real killers"..

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:Parent is correct

[Alaska Jack]

Hmmm, I don't know if the tone of your reply really captures what happened.

For one thing, it wasn't a "mistake." That word implies it was some kind of accident or oversight. To the contrary, the doctoring done in to the newspaper in the movie was clearly quite deliberate.

Also, Moore has already had plenty of time to apologize for this. He hasn't done so, and for good reason -- all it would do is generate another round of media coverage about how parts of F911 were deliberately deceptive.

You'll note from the Pantagraphs coverage the part where Moore refuses to answer a very simple question: Why was the newpaper doctored? Well, think about it: Why would Moore refuse to answer that question?

- Alaska Jack

Make the World a better place

[kcdoodle]

Here are my question/answers:
1. Is the world safer now than it was 4 years ago? NO
2. Is the US safer now than it was 4 years ago? NO
3. Is the world economy better now than it was 4 years ago? NO
4. Am I happy as I was with the US, world and my life than I was 4 years ago? NO.

I didn't vote for the guy. I voted for the guy that got the most votes and lost.

I live the greatest adventure anyone could wish for. - Tosk the Hunted

Farenheit 9/11 In Cuba

[iamghetto]

I'm not sure if people are aware of this or not, but at the end of July, after only a week in theatres, Farenheit 9/11 played on prime time TV in Cuba .

See cached yahoo news here.
See some other cuban news source here.

Re:bite me asshat.

[stephanruby]

Personally I think that they are going to make our efforts in Afganistan and Iraq look like a picnic.

They already have. 44 Chechyans have already disappeared for every 1000.

Its all about balance

[Brian_Warner]

In my opinion, yes, Fahrenheit 9/11 is biased, but no more than mainstream media is, in the opposite direction. Nothing Mr. Moore says is strictly untrue, but it is portrayed in such a way to make the Bush Administration look bad. I don't think that he ever claimed to not be biased, and perhaps its not such a bad thing that people will see the other side of the coin of mass media. After all, he doesn't claim to be impartial, the news does, and is often hopelessly unblalanced. I say show it and let people make up their own minds!

Re:And this they call informative?

[LordIvan]

... The fact is that aside from a very few scenarios Bush won all the recounts performed by the various newspapers and groups...

Uh... The fact that apparantly the newspapers and media count your votes in the US for you quite frankly disturbs me...

Get Real...

[coronaride]

Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances will we overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy.

It's this kind of thinking that really pisses me off - remnants of Manifest Destiny. Why the hell do we, as residents of the United States of America, think that we are invincible? This is what happens when you don't pay attention in your history classes, boys and girls! 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. The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'.

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Yeah, wouldn't you consider the American Revolution against the British an act of Terrorism? What is defined as terrorism is actually capable of bringing about positive change.

As residents of humanity, we need to recognize that all Nations created (in past or in the future) are corrupt and either have failed or are doomed to fail. Now, perhaps I'm just a doomsayer, but my feelings are that the unrest of many combined with the apathy and ignorance of many more are telling evidence of a major paradigm shift in American culture. I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to some change. Especially if it means taking the two-party system to the scrap pile.

Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA". Even the terrorist act on 9/11 is stirring the pot and, if you can't see that, well..I don't know..I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Seems like most people don't anyhow..

Anyhow, my two cents..

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: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.

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.

Effects of Media Consolidation - Not a Chance =(

[mgbastard]

As much as I would like this to happen; It won't. We know ABC and FOX are out. Perhaps CBS is a shot, but they are VERY family friendly with their mix of shows... they wouldn't want a religious right boycott. And all the cable networks are consolidated now, so there's no independent voice there either. "AOL" Time Warner's new crop of old media executives will keep it off their networks. Bravo and USA are owned by NBC. I would guess NBC is the closest shot at getting it aired. I discount ABC because Disney is the parent company, and FOX, well shit Rupert Murdoch isn't going to have any of that film on his stations.

Isn't media consolidation great? Thanks FCC.

All that being said, we'd be far better off in educating America if Bush's Brain was aired on television. That is a much more enlightening film. No offense Michael, I love your work, but Karl Rove is more dangerous than the Bush family ties to bin Laden.

Disclaimer: I have given to Kerry Edwards 2004, I have even have a sign in my yard (TEXAS) Not only that, I voted twice for Ross Perot. I remain an independent.

More Moore, not less

[evilpenguin]

To me, what we need is more Michael Moores, not fewer. Passionate people comitted to advocacy are what we need. Impassioned, biased as hell, clamoring for attention, screaming for justice. The problem is we have focus-group tested messages, campaigns designed to offend the fewest, messages targeted to motivate specific hot button issues and worse, specific fears, and we have journalists who would rather report simple polls than question policies.

In fact, as much as I despise the Republican party, it is not their fault they get away with this stuff (and the Democrats are no better, they're just not as good at it). The press is to blame. They bring in a right-wing shill and a left-wing shill that hit their talking points and they say "There you go. We're fair. We give boths sides." Both sides are a howling vacuum.

Michael Moore produced a singularly one sided narrative. Good! Let the other side do the same. I miss the days when cities had multiple newspapers and they were clearly partisan. They'd fight over every scrap of data. They'd dispute every assertion. They'd catch the other side's every lie. Sure, they'd gloss over their side's lies, but that's why you had the other sides papers.

We're awash in an ocean of carefully tepid news. Ask your local thermodynamicist how much work you can accomplish when the temperature is everywhere the same. I'd like to see some white hot blood in the debate. I'd like to hear a human voice instead of a scientifically measured non-message.

FOX is on 24 hours a day. Let Michael Moore have his 2 hours. If, like me, you basically agree with him, get mad and vote, and go to your next precinct caucus. Write letters. If Moore makes your gorge rise to the top of your throat, go out and make your movie (like the michaelmoorehatesamerica.com guy). You may not be as good at it as Moore. It might take you as long as it took him to get the stage like he has, but if you are pissed enough AND funny enough, you can do what he did. "Roger and Me" got made because he was mad and ironic and smart. And bitterly opinionated.

Do likewise!

The networks wouldn't air it.

[SpaceTaxi]

I would expect that given the film's reported bias, the major networks wouldn't touch F9/11 so close to November 2. Remeber, they didn't air any Arnold movies months before the California gubernatorial election.

Also, who would advertize? I guess it would be entirely political commercials. Perhaps a series of Bush ads reputing the prior segment of the movie. Who wants to sit through that?

I don't know if Moore really expects to get it aired, but you have to give him credit for his PR skills. Nothing like a piece of manufactured controvercy to drive DVD sales.

The real problem with Florida

[Rob Y.]

Bush may have 'won' Florida, but my beef is this. By any standard, he only won because of the butterfly ballot screw-up. And even then, lost the popular vote and only won by the slimmest Electoral College margin.

Probably the exit polls the networks relied on more accurately reflected the voters' intentions than the actual count did. But them's the rules.

All fair enough.

But the guy ran as a moderate 'uniter, not a divider'. Now you'd think a moderate uniter, especially one that got in through a fluke, might try to actually govern from the middle. Well, we know that didn't happen. GWB's been all talk, spin and constantly recallibrated salesmanship. All covering for actions that have been about as partisan as possible. So some people are mad. Go figure

Re:bite me asshat.

[Bora Horza Gobuchol]

Actually the 9/11 commission did conclude that there were links to al-Qaeda (just not to the 9/11 attacks).

Quite correct. In short, the links amounted to:

- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a radio station inside Iraq to broadcast propoganda into Saudi Arabia?" Saddam says yes - it makes sense to him to help destabilize Saudi Arabia.

- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a terrorist training camp inside Iraq?" Saddam says: "Sod off!" He's not stupid.

And they did find that sarin gas bomb that had about a gallon of sarin gas.

Quite correct. There are, however, two points that you missed.

The "bomb" - it was an IED - consisted of a unmarked 155mm mortar round. There's no proof that the round itself came from, or was manufactured in, Iraq. It was found near the Bahgdad airport, so it may have some from Syria ... but let's say that it was made in Iraq.

The bomb did explode, or partially release - yet it didn't kill anyone. Why not?

One of the unspoken details of the whole "WMD" fiasco is that chemicals decay. Nerve, chemical and biological agents have a limited "shelf life". Sarin gas - even in binary format, as the round apparently was - is effective for only a limited period of time.

Based on the available evidence (rather than hearsay) it most likely that the round was over a decade old. In other words, it was produced before Gulf War I. In other words, based on available evidence, the various bans and inspections in Iraq were working prior to the invasion. No new weapons were being produced, and Saddam only had a small, poorly developed, ineffective and rapidly decaying stockpile of decade-old weapons.

Terror? What terror?

[Colazar]

Maybe I'm wierd, but 9/11 didn't make me any more nervous at all. There are crazies in this world. They have been killing people, and they will continue to kill people. All at a ridiculously low rate.

I mean, when I grew up, everyone figured that sooner or later we were all going to die in a nuclear war. And now I'm supposed to get all worried that someone might blow up a building that I'm in? Puh-leeze.

To my mind, the War on Terror is akin to a bunch of Ticktockmen running around yelling "Repent Harlequin!" And to about as much effect.

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:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent post is very insightful in my opinion. Seeing problems as Christianity vs Islam, left vs right or Republican vs Democrats has never brought people closer together. And unless you are willing to eliminate one of the two parties, you will never have a solution till both agrea.

As for the Chechnian rebels. Being Islamic did not make them pickup arms. Being oppressed and having little to no future did however. People with little hope can^H^H^Hwill do horible things.

So if we don't want any more tragedies, will must bring people hope, hope for a beter future.

Read some history, follow the violence and find the gold. `It's all economics...`

Wouter

MOD PARENT UP

[grendelkhan]

As the target audience for the President's Christian message, I find him to be incredible superficial in his faith. That he uses it to try and garner support from me, and I get emails talking about what a man of faith he is from friends of mine that swallow it sickens me. George Bush is no more a Christian than Osama Bin Laden is. If the President was truly a Christian, he'd take more of the writings of Paul the Apostle to heart and actually do what they say. Because he goes to church and says the right things, I'm supposed to support him blindly?

My ass.

Curious..

[promethean_spark]

I remember during the CA recall election Arnolds movies were not played on network television because of equal airtime laws or somesuch. Since Bush is the "star" of F911, would not a similar airtime violation occur if it were broadcast before the election? Surely the Bush campaign could throw enough such suits at Moore to delay broadcast past the election.

Dave Kopel is a shill for a big money Republican..

[Naum]

...sugar daddy.

Dave Kopel Debunked

Dave Kopel, research director at The Independence Institute, has a very different take. No surprise since the institute is a "market-oriented" organization funded in part by the rightwing Castle Rock Foundation, a creation of the Coors brewing dynasty based in Golden, Colorado.

And yet it generates discussion!

[OoSync]

I finally saw F911 two nights ago. Of course, its full of MM's opinions on matters, but the film forces something upon the viewer that is genuinely necessary:

It makes you think!

It shows that George W. Bush and the people in his administration are not the simple Mayberry-ites they try to project. These are people with histories and dealings with many of the bad actors in today's world. They have ties and influence (and influenced by) a lot of what is the core of today's terrorist regimes.

You can dispute the movie all you wish, but it makes you think and wonder what's really going on. Oh, and its highly hypocritical to hold MM to a such a high standard when the Bush administration is allowed a pass on too many matters.

I think everyone should see it. Be full-warned that it has a strong emotional thrust in the second half, and the last third is a good bit different. I'd say all of the contested distortions are in the first half of the movie.

Re:bite me asshat.

[be-fan]

But we aren't fighting those people! Those are American terrorists, and we're not doing anything about those!

Just like the US and Iraq ???

[tygr007]

> Just like the US and Iraq, I suppose.

This would be the case if the US had have carpet-bombed Bagdad, Basra, Nadzaf, wiped out few villages, their troops tortured, killed, disappeared, raped civilians off the streets as a part of any military campaign waged there etc; (roughly 1/3 - 1/4 of the nation would get killed or lost http://www.hrw.org/photos/2002/chechnya/), the US press would had then refused to publicize proofs of those atrocities, coz it would be non-patriotic. If the US representatives would refused to negotiate or even talk with any (even the moderate and certainly not fundamentalist) representatives of the country in question (Maschadov in the Chechnya case).
If in the case of nearly any trouble the US press would say "a person of Arab (Caucasian in the Russian case) look was seen there".

Under such circumstances you may say that it is "just like the US in Iraq"

Forthemore, it seems that the Beslan attack has been performed mostly by Ossetians, Ingush and Arab muslim radicals. Whoever was it has surely nothing to do with Chechen citizens nor Maschadov.

Re:Wrong

[Brandybuck]

And he's the bad guy? I don't get it.

I can see that. There must be a lot of things you don't get. I am not a Bush supporter, but the stuff Moore picks out and focuses on are just bizarre.

Reading a children's book is a good example. What the fsck did you want the president to do? Throw the book up in the air and scream like a madman? Instantly launch a bunch of counterstrikes at a then unknown target? Hold a press conference within five minutes to present a weepy announcement? Moore's portrayal of that event is weird. Is he implying that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and the children were an "alibi"? Is he implying that Bush should have instantly restored order instead of reading to children? Is he implying that simply reading to children is an unpresidential activity?

Moore has taken a bunch of BFD-class molehills and tried to construct a mountain out of them. Bu that mountain is very crumbly and doesn't give you much of a view when you get to the top.

Yes, he's fat and vain, but being fat and vain doesn't make you wrong when you're right.

No one, and I mean no one, is claiming that Moore is wrong using "fat and vain" as evidence. That's beyond stupid.

Fox News is propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Moore's film is no more propaganda than what's shown on FOX or Murdoch's radio stations. Freedom of speech should extend beyond those who own the media.

Re:Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You don't have to look that far back. Just look at the official Bush web site a few weeks ago:

The Bush video's opening white-on-black graphic says, "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Wild-eyed." Next comes a parade of angry speakers: Al Gore, Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry.

That is, an official ad, not one that was posted to an open forum and then deleted by the moderators.

link

Re:bite me asshat.

[rco3]

I still don't understand what it was that Kerry did that you think is wrong.

Was he supposed to cover up what he had heard reported (and presumably had seen)? Would that have stopped torture of POWs? If you were an American prison guard, and knew that some of your compatriots had been tortured and raped by the compatriots of a man in your custody, would you abuse that prisoner? (Think carefully about your answer, and check the news before you respond.)

And let's get the story straight, here. Are the Swifties saying Kerry didn't earn his medals because they saw him NOT doing what his Naval record says he did, or because they don't like the fact that they were tortured while listening to him talk about bad things that American soldiers had done?

I'm sorry, but every single argument you've offered has, at root, been emotional and not logical. Either Kerry lied, and no one told him about atrocities they'd committed (or those things never happened), or else he told the truth. Whether you WANTED the truth to be told does not affect whether it was the truth. Did those things happen? All bullshit aside, you and I both know that My Lai was not an isolated incident.

I am NOT suggesting that John Kerry is the third coming of Christ, nor am I suggesting that he's the corporeal form of Gozer the Destructor (if anyone, Clinton looked more like the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man than Kerry does). What I'm saying is that you haven't described anything bad that he did. What you've said is that you don't like him, that you wish he hadn't told what we now know to be a fairly accurate account of American soldiers' behavior in Vietnam, and that he shouldn't be president because he told the truth when it was difficult to do so. I have yet to see any quote in which he implied or stated that all US soldiers were monsters, or that all US citizens condoned such awful behavior. Your suggestion that he did so is (according to what I'M aware of) an exaggeration and a twisting of the truth, an emotionally-loaded way of describing his statements.

Honestly, I still can't follow your logic. Why shouldn't Kerry be President?

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[RobertB-DC]

The movie showed network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. Why was he doing that, aside from the fact that men sometimes hold hands in Saudi Arabia? Why are they so warm with each other that they hold hands in public? One clue: I think we can rule out any idea that Prince Bandar actually likes George W. Bush; that would be very much against Saudi culture.

I was hoping for better than the Fifteen Hundredth Post to make this suggestion, but it goes with your comment. Plus, I need to make my crystal-ball prediction before it comes true.

I've believed, and have since early this summer (when I almost had to pay $2.00 a gallon for regular unleaded in Texas), that the Saudis are planning to play an active role in George Dubya's re-election. How can they do that, when election laws expressly forbid foreign contributions? Simple: adjust the price of oil.

Right now, I see $1.719 and think "wow, what a bargain!" But the night of 9/11, when gas lines were around the block at every station, the same price was absolutely absurd. It's only a bargain compared to the $1.80 I was paying two weeks ago, and the $1.90 I was paying earlier this year.

Now the price is dropping. Here's my prediction: prices will continue to drop right through the election, regardless of world events (short of a 9/11-style cataclysm). When Biff drives his H2 to the polls in Highland Park, he'll be thinking of how nice it is to have cheap gas again, not the 1000+ troops sent to die in Biff's name for that cheap gas.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Specter]

Senator Kerry admited that he personally committed war crimes (see the attached excerpt from an MSNBC transcript which quotes Senate hearings from 1971).

In the attached excerpt you'll see that he tries to back pedal out of that statement, but the fact is that he either did commit atrocities as he says he personally did or he lied to Congress about it. Either way the man is not fit to be the Commander in Chief of the United States.

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End videotape)

Mr. Russert: You committed atrocities.

Senator Kerry: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I
thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

Mr. Russert: You used the word "war criminals."

Senator Kerry: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.

Mr. Russert: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...

Senator Kerry: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.

Mr. Russert: So you stand by that?

Senator Kerry: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think twic

Amazing..

[hugo_pt]

I saw this movie last week, still can't believe how a country like America allowed Bush to become president. I never liked the man, but after seeing this documentary ? Damn. Especially shocking was in 9/11 when he was at the elementary school.. and he sat there instead of doing something. I couldn't believe this actually happened, but everything in the movie did make sense. IMO, the last stages of the movie (focuses on iraqui war) and the testemony of that mother who lost her son are there to cause some revolt on the american people, that really seemed to be his intention.

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:Wrong

[javaxman]

Reading a children's book is a good example. What the fsck did you want the president to do? Throw the book up in the air and scream like a madman? Instantly launch a bunch of counterstrikes at a then unknown target? Hold a press conference within five minutes to present a weepy announcement?

Actually, holding *some* sort of a press conference would have been reasonable, but really, I'm puzzled by the idea that he might not have decided to just stand up, appologize to the class, say that he has important business to tend to, and leave. What did he do instead? What would *you* have done? Just sat there?

Moore didn't portray the event so much as he showed actual footage of it taking place. Actually, he spared the audience much of the ( extremely uncomfortable ) seven minutes.

That Moore showed it was just predictable. That you'd think Bush's reaction to news that the WTC was blown up is to sit for seven minutes is a BFD-class molehill is what's bizarre. I suppose detaining US citizens without access to a lawyer is a BFD-class molehill as well... as is shuttling the Bin Laden family out of the US while other commercial traffic is grounded... no, you're not a Bush supporter at all ;-)

I'm encouraging everyong to read this book. These are some pretty damn big molehills.

I think it's totally hilarious

[HangingChad]

That the Republicans are backing a draft-dodging Connecticut Yankee for pres and a draft-dodging vice pres and don't see anything hypocritical about it. They used to rip on Clinton about that, called it lack of character. But it's no lack of character when it's their candidate. Nooooo.

I want my party back from these right wing fanatics calling themselves conservative when they don't know the meaning of the word. Back before the right turned into the religious right. Back when being a Republican stood for lower taxes, smaller government and keeping Big Brother out of your damn business. That's not the Republican party of today. Government spending is out of control, there's no such thing as an unreasonable search under Ashcroft and the number of government employees has surged more than 22% under Bush.

And my friends wonder why I'm backing Kerry. Even if he's a democrat I can't see him doing any worse than dubya.

So?

[sheldon]

I don't really like Michael Moore. But why is it bad that he's biased? Why is it bad that he is presenting his point of view and interpretation of events?

I watched F9/11. I didn't particularly like it. I felt the only meaningful point made in the film was the 7 minute footage of Bush just sitting there when the towers were hit by planes.

Watching that, I can't imagine anybody being impressed, and yet I heard scores upon scores of people making the patently stupid statement, "Oh, but he didn't want to scare the children."

Christ, talk about bias.

On many occasions, in Moore's film, he is misleading and deceiving, even cut-'n-pasting audio clips, or leaving out important conext.

You've just described the entire GW Bush reelection campaign, right there. How many times have we heard John Kerry is a flip-flop based upon taking statements out of context?

If you're going to whine about bias, you better be willing to whine about everyone. Otherwise you're nothing more than a biased shill yourself.

Read what I wrote.

[khasim]

"The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'."

What-the-fuck-ever. If that's what you want to believe, that's your perogative.

"Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA"."

Again, what-the-fuck-ever. Do you believe the terrorists will EVER overthrow our government and install THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT in its place?

I don't. And until they can do that, they are NOT a threat to the USofA.

"Even the terrorist act on 9/11 is stirring the pot and, if you can't see that, well..I don't know..I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Seems like most people don't anyhow.."

The problem is that YOU see EVERYTHING that happens as being the result of "terrorism".

It isn't.

"Terrorism" is the EXCUSE given to justify those actions. Most of the new laws we have to deal with were proposed BEFORE the WTC attack. But they didn't have any hope of passage.

Once there was a significant FOREIGN terrorist attack in the US, it was used to justify the passage of those laws.

Terrorism isn't the cause or the reason.

Power is the reason.

Terrorism is the excuse.

Osama will never take D.C. nor will he ever be elected President of the USofA. He and all the other terrorists will NEVER overthrow the USofA.

Only we can do that.

Re:Read what I wrote.

[coronaride]

Well it certainly seems like you are getting your definition of terrorism from either Fox News or President Bush. As mentioned in a previous reply to my original post, not all terrorism is specifically flying a plane into a building, exploding a bomb in a truck, or high-jacking a bus full of kids - not to say that these aren't acts of terrorism, but that's not what its limited to. Terrorism is a buzz-word and people are throwing it around without any regard nowadays.

What-the-fuck-ever. If that's what you want to believe, that's your perogative.

That's right, it is my perogative, but you are fooling yourself if you think that the United States is going to stand till the end of time. WE ARE F*CKING INFANTS compared to other countries around and we have the ability to lose our supremecy JUST as fast as we got it.

The problem is that YOU see EVERYTHING that happens as being the result of "terrorism".

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? What I was saying was that terrorism is one way for people to try to get what they want..especially when someone is REALLY desparate for it. The bottom line is that things are BOUND to change and there will be many reasons for it in this country; terrorism, whether you like it or not, has affected us and has altered the decisions to be made...

For example, say that because of the Patriot Act, formed ever so intrepidly by our fearless leaders, gets out of control in the future and becomes more and more invasive. So invasive, in fact, that it causes a complete civil war or public uprising. If it weren't for even the existence of terrorism, there wouldn't have been need for the Patriot Act in the first place, so it indirectly caused the regime change! Now, I'm not saying that this is going to happen, this is purely hypothetical.

That said..people like you piss me off. You think that you live in a bubble and that as long as you salute the bald eagle, vote republican/democrate, pay your taxes, and watch Sunday football that life is always going to be hunky dorey. Do you realize how long our country has had these luxuries for? Not that damned long...so why do you think it's going to keep on being this way?

You really need to get a clue..

Osama will never take D.C. nor will he ever be elected President of the USofA. He and all the other terrorists will NEVER overthrow the USofA.

Who says that Osama wants to take over the USA or be elected??? He just doesn't want us to be in power or, more specifically, for us to be mucking around his homeland. I don't blame him for the latter.

Only we can do that.

You're right, only the USofA can overthrow the USofA...? Do you even know what you just wrote? Ironically, you are correct - the positive kind of change will come from within...but it doesn't seem like Americans are very interested in that right now.

Re:Wrong

[Brandybuck]

What would *you* have done? Just sat there?

Not being president, I really don't know. What I do know is that hindsight is a hell of a lot clearer than foresight. But let me tell you what I did. I heard about the first tower and said "holy shit!" Then I went took a shower, brushed my teeth, and went off to work. It wasn't until I got to work that I heard about the strikes.

But even though I was not the president, I can imagine some common rationales for his actions without having to dredge the deep end of the paranoia pool. Bush was reading to children with the press in attendence. He probably had only the barest of information. So do you A) immediately hold a press conference with your only comments being "no comment" (simply because you don't have sufficient information); or B) tell your aide to get more information while you continue reading to children, because you don't want to start a panic in full view of the televising press? After all, it was only seven minutes.

no, you're not a Bush supporter at all

I am not a Bush supporter, but I will not apologize for my failure to fit into your preconceptions. I am getting extemely weary of this black/white polarity people like you are insisting for this nation. It's a bigger problem then Bush or Kerry or Moore. Heck, it might even be bigger than Iraq for the damage it can ultimately do.

How dare you insinuate which of two discrete political positions I must hold merely because I'm not a Moore fan! Get your mind out of that tiny little container and see the world for what it is! It doesn't matter if Moore is right or wrong, what really matters is that this is rapidly becoming a nation that cannot think outside of the pidgeonhole.

Re:USA-centric

[sidhartha]

Because slashdot is run by Americans

Why would we want to know where cornwall is. Do they have good burgers there?

Re:bite me asshat.

[rspress]

It is well know that the 9/11 terrorist, who were Saudis all had Kuwaiti passport, stolen from Kuwait by Saddams forces.

Mikes movie is nothing but an ad for Kerry and should be treated as such. If Kerry wins I see another Tammany Hall getting started...I just don't know who will be Boss Tweed this time around....my moneys on Hillary.

What the movie is about

[radtea]

Paraphrase:

"It has always amazed me that the people at the bottom of American society are the ones most willing to serve in the military. They serve, so we don't have to. And all they ask in return is that we never, ever send them into war without a good reason."

Any discussion of the film that misses this point, missed the point.

--Tom

Re:bite me asshat or Bìdeadh Buideal Mòr

[Cleetus Freem]

"bite me asshat"... now, is that a cockney slang version of the old British insult "Bite My Grasshat" or the Australian "Bite My Ass Shat"?

You know that both of those come from the ancient gaelic insult "Bìdeadh Buideal Mòr Sgruigean" which is first seen used by the famous (well, to Irish folks anyway...) Lord Cuchulain during the war between Ulster and Connacht (50 B.C or so)?

Purportedly he said it during an "honor meeting" as he faced off against Táin Bó Cualgne... historically it went like this,

Táin Bó Cualgne - "You are surrounded, your men are weak, you are outnumbered ten to one, you've no weapons left, you have neither water nor food... you have no hope. Surrender now and I will allow your men to return to their families, showing them the mercy that you have denied so many others."
Lord Cuchulain - "Bite me, asshat."

Of course he actually said, "Bìdeadh Buideal Mòr Sgruigean." but you know that already.

-Cheers.

Re:2001 Anthrax Attacks Origin and Targets

[DeadScreenSky]

Wikipedia has an excellent explanation, especially in detailing the targets. The article here is now subscription only, but you can get the jist of it from what is given. Obviously you could google for "Steven Hatfill", who at least was suspected as being part of the leak (I have no idea if he is still under suspicion, but obviously the government figured it was from one of their labs if they were looking at him). A good (early) article about why it looks like military anthrax samples were used is here.

But honestly, you probably should have just briefly looked into this yourself. Obviously most of this is common knowledge to quite a few people, and has been for some time (I learned that it was almost definitely US military in origin probably well more than six months ago).

not enough art

[kardar]

You see those commercials about what happens if you don't get enough art in school - well, listen to people tearing apart this movie and about how this thing or that thing is incorrect.

Who cares? That's not the point. I was very, very, very, and I mean VERY sceptical before I saw the movie. I read all of the websites that are critical of Moore. You could say that I had a pretty good idea about what was in the movie, and what was wrong with what was in the movie, before I ever watched it.

But then I said OK - I am going to watch this movie. And it's a cool movie. I like it. I think that if you want to tear apart the movie because it's supposed to be a "documentary" and it's "factually inacurrate" or WHATEVER is irrelevant, that's not really the way it was presented.

You have to use your imagination to understand the larger concepts and the abstract things that make the movie what it is, and similarly, you have to use your imagination to try to believe that tearing those larger, abstract concepts apart has any relevance or merit.

The movie may or may not be this or that, but one thing we need in America is a greater appreciation for art and abstract concepts.

-------------------

I think that what happened with the oil crisis, the Iran hostage crisis - which lead to the Reagan era is a natural sort of balancing out of the excesses that America still represents. Getting fundamental, conservative, and thumping bibles isn't going to stop the natural balancing acts that nature performs on superpowers, or those that try to be and/or become superpowers.

Look at Russia. They were once trying to be a superpower. Look at how now they are completely unable to prevent terrorism. The theatre, and now the school. This is what happens to superpowers. It's not good.

So while fighting against the natural balancing acts that the global environment is presenting to America might be one numb-sculled approach, the end result, the lesson that we should all learn is that it's not good to be a superpower. If you want to drive fast and not get pulled over, don't put sporty stripes and fancy spoilers on your car.

More art, less neo-con philosophy, and a greater ability to defend (that's DEFEND - not preempt). Even peace-loving hippy folks take marital arts self-defence courses from time to time. The neo-con philosophy has its own dictionary entry for defense - what most normal folks would call offense. Micheal Moore, appropriately, has his own dictionary entry for documentary - and if you don't get enough art, you won't "get" that.

Re:bushy

[Brandybuck]

Bushsupporter or not, you did avoid all the other remarks made by the original poster.

I avoided them because they didn't address my original remark about the book reading "incident". But since you bring up the Bin Laden family the third time this thread, let me answer briefly:

Yes, Bush supplied the Bin Laden family with favors. If I were president I would have done the same thing. This is, to use a very localized vernacular, a "nothingburger". Having ties to the Bin Laden family is completely immaterial. You do not condemn an entire family for the actions of someone they disowned years ago. Moore didn't bring up this topic because he was concerned about the president's ties to wealthy individuals in other nations. He brought it up solely because of the name "Bin Laden".

M.Moore just made it plain obvious Bush was and is a complete idiot without any real character

If he would have kept it at that, I probably would not have had much of a problem. Lobbing charges of lack of character and intelligence is an old and worn tactic by all sides. I ignore it when I hear it. But Moore went beyond this. His thesis wasn't "look how stupid this guy is", but rather "look how evil and conspiratorial this guy is."

Moore "controversial"? Or is Bush "controversial"?

[fcassia_at_gmail]

So apparently Moore is "controversial"... let's see:

Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the 80s
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.re gime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg

America's WMD: Air Force tests "mother of all bombs"
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/iraq_moab03 0311.html

"In a flashy debut for its biggest non-nuclear bomb, the Air Force today dropped a 21,000-pound behemoth onto a test range in Florida"

"Anthrax sent to U.S. senate matches Army strain"
http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/12/18/an thrax.investigation/

CNN: Army confirms anthrax production in Utah
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/12/army.anthrax/

BUSH SPURNS BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS BAN
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,494257 ,00.html

"a 1972 treaty banning biological weapons has been added to the list of international protocols Bush has decided to ignore"

U.S. accused of trying to derail anti-torture pact
http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/torture.html

"The United States on Tuesday was accused of trying to derail a new draft international treaty against torture that has taken a decade to negotiate."

"The treaty, which is to be debated in the U.N. Economic and Social Council beginning on Wednesday, would set up an international system of inspections for all sites where prisoners were held, to insure that torture was not taking place. "

and this:

Document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key U.N. Security Council members
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239, 905936,00.html

I don't think Moore's film is the cause of "controversy". I think the hawkish Bush administration and previous republican ones are the cause of controversy. Don't shoot the messenger.

Re:Know thy enemy

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

You think that's the reason?

I guess you aren't aware that the Bin Laden family is a major investor in the american arms companies ... the Bin Ladens made a great profit through all the government arms contracts needed to replace the weapons used in Iraq.

I guess you also aren't aware that the Bin Laden's are a major oil family, and that by helping Bush destabilize the world oil markets using the false scare tactics, and pinching off the oil supply from Iraq, Bush and his Bin Laden friends have gotten exactly what they wanted ... an oil price that has more than doubled!

In fact, just in July of this year, Americans sent $90BILLION more dollars to saudi arabia to buy oil than they would have with the pre-war / pre-bush prices!

You have no idea how much the Bin Ladens love you dumbass americans.

Wrong lizard alert!

[Vintermann]

"He was a Naderite in 2000, he helped elect Bush. " If everyone in the USA voted with their hearts instead of "rationally" fearing that the wrong lizard may win, there might actually be real change. Blaming a guy for doing the right thing instead of the "smart" thing, that stinks.

Switch to Condorcet voting today!

Re:bite me asshat.

[rco3]

"Even if everything he said was true, that doesn't make it a good idea to associate with radical anti-war groups and testify in Congress with poorly-checked facts"

I'll certainly agree with the part about poorly-checked facts. I'm not sure that associating with radical anti-war groups is a bad thing. It certainly seems to have chuffed off a lot of people around here, though!

Thanks for the rationality in your response, BTW.

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

Then why does business seem as shitty as it did in January of 2002?

Not sure, our business is up. Unit volume is up, dollar volume is up, and gross margins up a few points to boot. Personal income is almost double, from '02 numbers. Most of my friends are in the same position. A few are even from 02. Fewer are worse off. Perhaps your problems are not related to the President.

And why are we supposed to be enamoured of the conservative fiscal policy of the President if it makes no difference?

I am not enamoured by any Presidents policies. I don't think that the ONE person in office is the most important factor in my personal success. I have always believed the person who has the most control over my personal success is ME. Granted, its not very convenient for laying blame, but since I take personal responsibility, I find I don't need to blame anyone anyway.

I prefer a fiscal conservative, but unfortunately, there isn't one running for President this year. W is the closest thing to a fiscal conservative, so he gets my vote. The last fiscal conservative we had as President was Reagan. It will be a while until we see someone like him again.