Slashdot Mirror
Celsius 41.11: A Rebuttal to Michael Moore
deezl writes "Michael Moore released a controversial movie revealing 'facts' about the Bush Presidency. A new rebuttal has just been released called Celsius 41.11. I would think that time sensitive political commentaries would be available for download to ensure the widest possible distribution base. If documentary makers are so interested in getting their message out and arguments across, why not encourage free BitTorrent type distribution for their movies?"
Michael Moore DID encourage downloading of his movie via Bittorrent, and other means.
-9mm-
The video has some shocking content. The worst was a clip of a kid getting his fingers chopped off. That almost made me ralph with the hangover I have this morning.
Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."
There are no facts here or there or anywhere. There is only Zoul.
Seriously, neither film is unbiased so those with an interest in a particular one pretty much know which way they are voting.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
at least from comments Moore has made he doesn't care. Now the Weinsteins, they'll probably sue for custody of your children. Then eat them.
there sure are a lot of people clammering to "refute" them.
heck, that one guy from "michael moore hates america" even managed to get made fun of on the daily show. hooray for the heroic anti- michael moore forces.
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
Nothing like loading /. in the browser and seeing what at first glance appears to be your own rather obscure domain name in the first story next to "Michael Moore".
/.
Note to self: have more coffee before logging on
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
8 minutes on the front page and only 6 comments. how popular is THIS gonna be? The movie, at this point, seems to be a "me too" type movie.
Having not particularly been impressed, well with any of Moore's movies, and having seen this. I'm filled with new found respect for Moore. They manage to make the tubby hack look, well pretty subtle and tactful. I'm not sure how they pulled that off....
I like how they equate even rudimentary social programs with out of control totalitarianism.
I mean I was a *little* tired of the latest excuse for liberating Iraq, "What you though Hussein was a nice person, well why do *you* live with him?" But seriously, they're making the obvious response, as grim and undignified as it is, look ever more appropriate.
And as I read this again from a different perspective, perhaps deezl was calling out the makers of Celsius 41.11 because if you go to their site, no where does it say where or how or even if you can download their movie. Just lists how to get the DVD.
So maybe he's saying that Celsius 41.11 isn't true? Or is he saying that Michael Moore isn't true?
Just WTF is deezl saying? Or is he saying anything?
Or maybe to quote Mongo: "deezl just pawn in game of life".
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Not only that, Citizens United is renting a theater in my hometown to show it for free. I guess that's the only way to get anyone to come if it's free. I wonder if the theater will bill them extra for having the coke syrup and bits of popcorn cleaned off the screen when they're done.
Incidentally, the same theater charged for F9/11 with numerous soldout screenings.
Unknown host pong.
Wow. Only eight comments so far. I'm actually kind of sad about that. Do you guys have any idea what this thread would look like already on Fark?
I wonder how many people (like me) are reluctant to post in Political threads because we will undoubtedly lose karma in the process. There are only so many (-1) flamebait posts I want to see next to my name, you know?
--
shut up barjockey, you cock
Micheal Moore had to walk a thin line concerning net distribution of the movie. If he had openly endorsed it, it would have been disqualified from the Academy Awards. By merely tolerating it, he was able to keep the Oscar hopes alive.
Granted, the Oscar may not seem like much, but it is important to the producers and the financial backers.
Bush really didn't sit there on 9/11 like a useless moron for 7 minutes as the nation was under attack?
That bastard Michael Moore!!!!
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Some notes on David Bossie.
What's up with the name.... Fahrenheit 911 was, at least, a very witty title on a lot of levels. This is just stupid. The temperature the brain starts to die???? Do they know this from personal experience with our current President? Or from all our soldiers standing in a foreign desert far away from their families. Michael Moore may well be a left-leaning spin-doctor but at least he's good at it. If Bush actually wants four more years he's going to have to do a little better than this.
Two new films offer a rebuttal to the slanted views of Michael Moore. Michael Moore Hates America and FahrenHYPE 9/11 . Both are due to be released to DVD on October 5th to coincide with the DVD release of Fahrenheit 9/11. I have yet to see either of these films, but the trailers look compelling.
For an detailed rebuttal of Fahrenheit 9/11 read Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 .
It might mean something, but I have no idea what it is.
According to the master of the universe:
41.11 degrees Celsius = 105.99800 degrees Fahrenheit
106? Does that mean something?
Chris
I give the Citizen's United website a failing grade for requiring the latest version of Flash to view it at all. What is this, 1998?
I'd be curious to see what points they make, but I'm not going to set up Flash on (this particular) computer just to do it.
Somewhere, the creator of Lynx is rolling over in his grave.
More people saw the movie in the theatres than have ever seen anything from BitTorrent. And most studios won't pay to promote a movie if it is going to be given a way.
Studio release and publicity IS the best way to get the message out.
Let me explain. Once you look past Mr. Moore's biased you'll see that the film is doing nothing more than asking the question that should have been asked by the media we already have in place. The media failed to do so, thus we have Moore's film filling in where they came up short. Does he get somethings wrong? Your goddamn right he does, but it doesn't mean we should ignore him completely.
Now the same can be said for the rebuttal. Moore's obviously put his own spin on things (as he should) after all, all he's doing is connecting dots to make a point. He most likely went overboard with some of his assumptions. Now I haven't seen the new movie yet, but lets hope it fills the holes in Moore's movie and is not just an outright attack on Moore (I hope this makes my own biased completely clear).
This shouldn't have to be said, but everyone should watch both movies and then make up their own minds.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
911 in Plain Sight has an interesting DVD (scroll down to [Movies - DVD-R] 911 In Plane Site ,excelent new docu...)
And here is a good commentary & rebuttal
Peace
--
ALL civilizations eventually collapse.
Or are you that ignorant and arrogant to assume that yours won't?
Why?
"The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws" -- Tacitus, A.D. 55
You dumb bastards, everybody needs to wake up and go find the truth out for them self. I believe that these films should be used as a starting point for people to research the FACTS for themselves. We all know that BOTH sides spin the truth and they both just want to win.
Another key idea in looking subjectively at both of these "Films" is to check the sources, here is a video from the GOP, if you bother to check the sources and the original video you will find that a LOT of editing has been done.
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/092004v2.wmv
I think that theses efforts are to little to late. F9/11 come out on DVD soon and its impact was far greater then a few highly edited Internet streams. Michael Moore was doing a favor to this country that is half asleep at the wheel. It is been found that the average American think about politics five minutes every month. No wonder all of this spin is so effective to the weak minds of Americans. If people would bother to go get a paper or read up on current events they might be informed with real facts; I am so sick of people relying on audio/video clips for their source of news. There is a clear bias on how they are presented on each "NEWS" cast. If we can even call any of this crap news in this country anymore. I recommend that people get their news from real sources outside this country where the broadcasters and news reporters don't care what side you are on.
I hate Bush and his whole administration, but I cannot hold up Moore's film as anything other than highly misleading propoganda. He did way more than "put his own spin on things".
For example, he shows a clip of some politician claiming "and we've set up an 800 number so you can call us and complain," and inserts a little subtitle claiming "this isn't true." The truth is that the phone number was (and still is) a 1-888 number, which is just as toll-free as 1-800 numbers are. But because (int)888 != (int)800, Moore tells us that the "800 number" statement is false, and implies that the entire statement is a lie.
Another example: Moore makes a big stink over only one member of Congress with a child enlisted in the military in Iraq. What Moore carefully leaves out is all the Congresscritters with children deployed elsewhere, or not yet deployed, or -- this is the nice one -- serving as officers in Iraq. The latter don't count, see, because they're not enlisted. Moore deliberately relies on audience members to hear "enlisted in the military" and include all ranks and services at once.
The most balanced objective take on the file I've seen so far is the point by point list of deceits.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Popularity is a reliable indicator of accuracy, so we don't need to examine the content of C41.11. And if you disagree with that statement, why did you rely on the popularity fallacy, just trolling on your lunch break?
If I told you that was last year, would you know what I meant?
I knew a lot of people too closed minded to go out and see Fahrenheit 9/11. Hopefully, this movie's hype will allow them to take a look behind the curtain and see how ignorant they are of politics, war, and the economy. Whatever the motive, I think watching some kid get his fingers chopped off has to make you stop and think about the world around you.
Sorry, you wanted the plain-text version did you?
Here you go:
Good stuff ehh?
No Comment.
There's doing nothing. (What happened)
There's running around in a panic. (What is suggested here as THE alternative.)
Then again...
I got the official 9/11 report for my birthday. I haven't had time to read it, but I have cracked it a little. I've also read another minute-by-minute account of the morning of 9/11, backed up by source links.
The *real* crime of 9/11 had nothing to do with Bush, but rather with the link between the FAA and NORAD. FAA rules state that NORAD is to be notified immediately of all hijackings. There was a delay of nearly 1/2 hour between recognition of the first hijacking and NORAD acknowledgement. (This is from the other report, I need to verify this in the 9/11 report.)
Next, in that first hour or so after the hijacking there appeared to be mass confusion between ATC and NORAD. There was uncertainty about how many hijackings, who should be looking where for what, etc. (Still from the other report.)
Finally, within the space of a few minutes, the first jet hit the WTC, and the other 3 jets were hijacked. (From the 9/11 report) We were a half-hour into the confusion, with another half-hour to go, by which time the whole thing was pretty well over, except for the shouting.
I don't know if anything could have been done to stop the first jet, after the hijacking. Ignoring the intelligence leading up to 9/11 is a different issue. But about the time one jet has crashed into a building and 3 more are known hijacked, we should have been into Full Response, instead of confusion.
What would I want Bush to have done? Put someone in Charge. He was probably too far out of the loop, in Florida. But he should have put someone in Charge to tie together ATC, NORAD, and whoever else was appropriate.
But then again, the famed 7-minute pause was *after* the 2nd jet crashed into the WTC. So even had he calmly stood up, excused himself, and taken/delegated control, it was too late. There's some question about whether or not he heard about the first jet hitting the WTC prior to entering the school. There's some question about those in the White House delaying feeding him info for 10 minutes or so. The findings: "A Failure of Imagination." Whatever happened to Truman's, "The Buck Stops Here?"
The machine called "The US Government" had multiple failures that day. In fact, the only correct, effective response was by passengers. Grounding all air traffic was correct, and might have been effective had there been more jets-as-missiles planned, and did serve to restart air traffic with better security.
Back to Moore... It's so fun to tear down 1-800 vs 1-888, and Enlisted vs Officers, etc that we just lose track of the other points where the facts were less tilted and more clear. The less disputed facts raise perhaps the more important questions, yet recieve little focus.
But then that's been the way of this whole election cycle.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
So *Salon* is your resource for unbiased analysis? Listen to this lead they write:
Partisan hack David Bossie raised political sliming to an art form against Bill Clinton. Now he's out to smear John Kerry and Michael Moore. Why does anyone in the media still take him seriously?
Partisan hack? Raised political sliming to an art form? Now out to smear [a presidential candidate]?
Sounds like a description of Michael Moore. Funny that Salon didn't mention that part, being Journalists with such high professional standards and all.
Why does anyone in the media still take him seriously?
I wonder the same about Salon. Oh, wait, they ARE the media.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Yea really. "Wah wahh, I proclaim to be a computer nerd but I'm too weak and helpless to view a fucking flash page." Typical Linux head-in-the-clouds zealotry. Installing flash requires what -- hitting enter when the prompt comes up? Oooooooooh, fear that.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Fact about Fahrenheit 9/11: It has been extraordinarily successful, grossing a fifth of a billion dollars on a $6 million investment.
--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good. Are you getting some of the $?
sorry, was asleep when i wrote it, mod this down too once parent is modded down
The "Moonlight Sonata" background music seemed strange to me, since I played the first movement in a recital when I was in junior high. I was sort of confused - were they trying to find really cheap public domain background music so that nobody could accuse them of infringing?
For the record, I'm socially liberal, economically agnostic, am strongly against pre-emptive warfare and wars without congressional approval including the current one, and dislike George Bush intensely.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was the first Moore movie I have seen. It was good in the sense that it was asking all the questions that should have been asked and pointing out all the inconsistencies of the Bush administration and the synchophants that support it. In other words, everything the media should have been doing instead of repeating talking points straight from the Drudge Report and indulging in shallow displays of patriotism.
However, I wasn't impressed with Moore's style or technique in F911. It just wasn't very good. The pacing was bad, the first half of the movie dragged, the music was waaay off, etc. His stunts and little editing quirks seemed juvenile. I had already seen "Supersize Me" earlier this year, and I couldn't help but think how much better MADE that movie was than F911. Anyway, I have no reason to think Moore's other films are any different. They probably follow the same pattern - excellent subject matter, deep research, and a mediocre-to-poor execution.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
"Maybe "Bush started a war for profit not liberty," but what was the end goal? Has Iraq been liberated?" "No."
... some are worse off ... some are better off.
This depends upon how you define "liberated". If you define it as "no long under Saddam's rule", then they are liberated. If you define it as "self rule" then they are still under US control as we can veto anything their "government" does (and we have with the release of the female prisoners).
"Are the Iraqi people better off now than with Saddam?" "Possibly yes, probably not."
Again, it comes down to definitions. Some are dead
It is all about the specifics of each case. Enough specifics and you have a general consensus.
"We see them protesting instead of having their fingers chopped off for touching an American newspaper, so that appears to be some kind of advancement." I see protesters being mown down by American helicopter gunships instead of Iraqi helicopter gunships, though I would hardly qualify as advancement.
If protestors die, does it REALLY matter if it was Saddam who killed them or if it was us?
Personally, I'd place those protestors who were killed in the NOT "better off now than with Saddam" category.
But when the discussion drops to the level of arguing whether a dead civilian is better off or worse off than an oppressed civilian, the ONLY thing that can be said is that both sides are wrong.
I don't choose to just be less wrong than Saddam.
*opps*
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
"You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq."
Iran is closer to Afghanistan than Iraq is.
Iran already has an Islamic fundamentalist government while Iraq was secular.
Why would Osama move to Iraq instead of to Iran?
You also need to look at the usage of the word "reportedly" in that section your quoted. No evidence, just people saying that such and such happened.
Just like our invasion was based upon people saying that such and such "WMD's" were there. In fact, let's break this down a bit.
"In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative."
"In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence."
"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban."
"According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq."
"The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States."
"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
"Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
Again, when you WANT to hear something, you'll take someone's WORD that it is true. Which is what got us stuck in Iraq.
Rather than relying upon what other people SAY happened, can we just stick to verifiable facts?
Notice how the point at the beginning of this thread was immediately avoided by bringing up a distracting point?
Responding to the point: "Bush really didn't sit there on 9/11 like a useless moron for 7 minutes as the nation was under attack?" Yes, that was network TV footage, and George W. Bush clearly was not acting like a leader.
That was not the most important network footage in Fahrenheit 9/11, however. The most important was the video of George W. Bush holding hands with "Prince Bandar", a Saudi Arabian representative of the present Saudi government. The Bush family has such a close relationship with Bandar that they call him, "Bandar Bush". Clue: The Bush family may be fooled, but you shouldn't be. Prince Bandar is not a friend of the Bush family, or of the United States.
According to a tape from Osama bin Laden, the principle reason for the terrorism of al Qaeda is that the U.S. government is interfering with needed political change in Saudi Arabia. This is a legitimate complaint, many people say. (However, the violence is not justified, of course.) The Bush family has been heavily invested in arms manufacturers. So, 9/11 increased the opportunity for profit.
--
Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. government is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?
When an American compares combatants in some conflict to the Revolutionary Americans, I usually take that as an expression of sympathy with said combatants.
The idea of a Conservative Film Festival is as ridiculous as the idea of a Liberal Film Festival. It's revolting the people are so polarized by politics that everything has to be separated down ideological lines... and the idea that G.W. Bush is a heroic figure is so laughable that I'm shocked that anyone can say it with a straight face.
I used to be a daily reader and regular contributor to Slashdot until the political rancor got to me... especially from the conservative right members. Say anything critical of this president and his policies and you get modded into oblivion. How charming. I hope Bush sends you a check for your vigorous defence.
But what are you defending?
From what I can tell, this election seems to be about who did a better job in Vietnam, and fat people wearing flip-flops on their hands at Republican convention.
"Let's look at this like a game of Starcraft...when playing against 3 other people, do you attack all 3 simultaneously, or do you attack 1, stabilize it, then attack another?"
Newsflash!
Running the country is NOT the same as playing a game. In StarCraft it is only you running all the forces. In the Real World you have LOTS of people to work with.
It's possible to support the UN's efforts at finding "WMD's" in Iraq (they did have people on the ground there)
-and-
Shore up the country you just invaded (Afghanistan)
-and-
Push world-wide efforts to trace the money the terrorists are using
-and-
Balance the budget.
"While I think we're capable of both walking AND chewing gum, let's not get ourselves too spread out."
The US government is bringing back people who have already LEFT the military in an attempt to fill vacant slots. We are ALREADY "spread out". That is because Bush does not understand leadership any more than you do.
"Hussein was a known problem, we'd tangled with him before."
Saddam wasn't even a threat to the countries around him. He wasn't any "problem".
"Iran and North Korea are being dealt with."
And all the problems will be fixed in the next service pack. Right. Iran knows that we cannot invade another country. North Korea knows that we're pinned down. Now is the best time for them to drive their programs. The sooner they get nukes, the sooner they're on an equal footing with us. Bush made a complete mess of that situation.
This is a common tactic of Re-money-cans. He changed the subject to distract from the truth of the main issue raised.
--
Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. Gov. is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?
Well, I watched the preview and I can give it to you in text form.
.
1) Show several images of the Sept. 11 Tragedy.
2) Show the only images you can find of George W. Bush NOT flubbing his words.
3) Show several images of arab terrorists beating people and such.
4) Wrap it up with "Learn the truth behind the lies" or some such thing, I'm not going to watch it again just to see the stupid line so I can quote it.
Now one might ask themself what this has to do with Fahrenheit 911 or even the war in Iraq. However, as we have seen from this administration. There doesn't have to be a connection, we can just take the train in Mr. Roger's house to imagination land and pretend there is. Of course, then we would shoot all of the puppets for being terrorists. .
-> Fritz
Spooooon!!!!!
Okay, I wasn't impressed at all with F9/11. I felt that it was a selective set of facts loosely assembled in such a way as to make the Bush administration look bad. It was almost purely a propaganda piece.
Celsius whateveritis looks like an attempt to do the same thing in reverse. They've selectively assembled a bunch of facts to make President Bush look good and to make Michael Moore look bad. So basically, another propaganda piece trying to rebut the first.
My recommendation is to do your homework, find your own facts, and draw your own conclusions. Don't listen to a bunch of blowhard filmmakers about who you should vote for.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Who the hell is "G Squared Interactive?"
o m
Google's never heard of 'em; AnyWho's never heard of 'em; their phone number is either bogus or unlisted, ditto for their admin email address.
WHOIS:
www.citizensunited-interactive.org
G Squared Interactive
c/o Network Solutions
Herndon, VA 20172-447
(570) 708-8780
pz74s7h92ge@networksolutionsprivateregistration.c
I suppose if I were making inflammatory political statements (right-wing, left-wing, or other-wing), I'd use anonymizers, too. But don't ICANN rules require legitimate contact info for domain registration?
Just curious...
Karma
Don't you blindly accept the claims of some anonymous Internet posting?
Well, you won't get far with that attitude.
(n/t)
here's one view of what his administration could have been doing a month earlier.
I've just read up a little on your previous political threads.
Seriously, mate. You're an ass. Your loss of karma is well justiced.
Shut up. Stop fucking whining. These are real people having real opinions on how they interprete what you write. That means, a rating as Troll means that a lot of people find that you complaining about 'niggers' ruining YOUR OWN multi-ethnic society is nothing but the spew of a racist, little maggot too afraid to discuss politics in real life.
I'm sorry man, you're an ass. You'll realize soon.
Celsius 41.11 = Fahrenheit 105.99 = The temperature at which freedom develops a slight fever.
if GWB's admin will require that all Americans see this. Or will he simply offer up free theater time to be paid by American Taxpayers for the republican party.
And Florida. Both "harbored," through their inaction, Al Quaida operatives - for a very long time. Some US flight schools even taught these murderers to fly. Perhaps the US military should invade Germany and Florida?
I am constantly impressed by your ability to spew random, meaningless statements out of your butt in your never ending effort to sidetrack conversations. I salute you, sir troll.
Yea he was just one of the most important law makers
And just how is making law going to deal with the attack that's going down on your country right now?
who wants to be president.
...two years before he started running.
I mean its not Like John Kerry in on the seante foreign relations commitee is it? Why did he not spring up and start calling people?
Like I said before, how would thinking about foreign relations do anything to stop someone's attack? FR is something to work on to prevent future attacks, not provide the first line of real, physical defense for your country.
What action *within the scope of his power* did he take.
That's just it: there was no action within the scope of his power that would make any difference. And that's not using 20/20 hindsight, unlike the Bush apologists who insist it was okay for Bush to sit in a classroom for 7 minutes after the second plane crashed "because it wouldn't have made any difference in the end." Just what are you suggesting Kerry should have done? Call up the Senate and get a bill passed that would get fighter jets in the air?
Well lets see Im sure at a tim when assaniation was bloodly likely
Why was it "bloody likely"? Was Clinton afraid of an assasination attempt after the bombings of our embasies in Africa, the Oklahoma City Bombing or the first terrorist attack on the WTC? And if your enemy's weapon of joice seems to be jumbo jets, wouldn't you want to get the fuck out of the building you are currently in? Belive it or not, but that's what the Secret Service is for: extracting the president out of hostile situations on a moments notice.
In addition to this what could he have done in those moments?
There's that 20/20 hindsight again. Wether or not he could have made a difference in the end is irrelevant. Even if Bush didn't have the first clue what to do (which he obviously did not), that's what he has a Secretary of Defense for. Actually, he has a two time SOD in Rumsfield, and Cheney was SOD under Herbert Walker Bush. So its not like he didn't have anyone to call, and the fact that he did not is inexcusable. And no amount of neocon apologizing and spin doctoring will do a god damn thing to change that.
What could anyone have done (even John Kerry)? Bush was more than a thousand miles away from Washington, and more than two thousand miles away from NY.
There's this great invention called the telephone. You can even use them without wires now, they're called cellular phones.
"If a dictator provides education, I like that dictator."
Meanwhile, the video is a shot of Osama bin Laden with a gun.
Excuse me? The person being talked about is Saddam Hussein. I suppose they all look alike to you?
When will the Republicans learn, Iraq had nothing do to with September 11th? There's also a shot of the Khobar Towers and the USS Cole. I wonder what that has to do with Iraq...
By the way, what does what some lady on the street says have to do with Michael Moore?
Moore's film was kind of weak. Big deal. That doesn't change that Iraq was just one big waste of time. That doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with Bush. Personally, I think someone could make a much BETTER film about Bush's wrongdoings, but Michael Moore isn't smart enough to make that film. That doesn't make John Kerry any less capable of being president, and it doesn't make George Bush any better. Some people need to get a grip.
This one seems a little lower on the "shock" scale.
www.fahrenhype911.com