Fahrenheit 9/11 reaction thread

[Beckman]

Lower taxes and less social programs: have clearly and absolutely worked, we are a wealthy nation. The proof is in the pudding, and our pudding's been pretty darn good!

Pete

What about the great depression? That pudding didn't taste too good. Lower taxes and less social programs clearly and absolutely didn't work.

All that I know for sure is that:
Bush is a crook.
Kerry is a crook.
Michael Moore is a crook.

[okiemax]

Sorry to keep butting in Keith, but.

I agree 100% about the Rush thing, MM is always free to speak as he sees fit, but we don't have to respect him. We haven't come here and talked about the "latest thing" Rush has said, and I've certainly never defended the guy.

Lower taxes and less social programs: have clearly and absolutely worked, we are a wealthy nation. The proof is in the pudding, and our pudding's been pretty darn good!

Pete

The Bush Administration has reduced taxes without offsetting reductions in spending, thus increasing the National debt. Reductions in tax rates have been greatest for the wealthy, but future taxes for payment on the debt will be a liability for Americans at all income levels. In effect, the poor and the middle classes of tomorrow will be paying for what today's wealthy are enjoying. This is a "Robin Hood in reverse" tax policy.

[RGA]

The Bush Administration has reduced taxes without offsetting reductions in spending, thus increasing the National debt. Reductions in tax rates have been greatest for the wealthy, but future taxes for payment on the debt will be a liability for Americans at all income levels. In effect, the poor and the middle classes of tomorrow will be paying for what today's wealthy are enjoying. This is a "Robin Hood in reverse" tax policy.

And why would Bush and everyone working for him care - their companies are the ones gaining BILLIONS of dollars - when Bush is out of office what does it matter if the economy is horrible - Bush/Cheney etc got theirs.

Would the democrats be any better? Can't say - Michael Morre in his book blasted Clinton too...have not read his book - a look inside the whole system might be in order. Why you only have two parties is silly - get some new blood in there...maybe a Communist party just for fun

[Mash]

"Would the democrats be any better? Can't say - Michael Morre in his book blasted Clinton too...have not read his book - a look inside the whole system might be in order. Why you only have two parties is silly - get some new blood in there...maybe a Communist party just for fun"

Yea- you would get a LOT of new blood with the Communists, considering what Mao-ze-dingdong did in China and what Uncle Joe Stalin did in the Soviet Union.... Uncle Joe beat out Uncle Adolph in the Kill-a-Citizen Contest by three to one. So.... you would maybe like a free all-expenses-paid Gulag Vacation?

[RGA]

Okay - Marxism instead of communism.

All the isms seem to develop out of each other - none of them are worth a damn.'

The best one is Star Trekism. And the fact that humankind can dream it - then with some work we can make it happen. Idealism? you bet but what a sad little world it would be without a healthy dose of that.

[Keith from Canada]

...the bits and pieces, just some generalizations...

Who do you think gets more attention? A "Rush Limbaugh"-type or someone like a Susan Sarandon...Why might that be? The liberal mass-media et al holds more sway over the sheep...OOOH, entertain me and tell me what I should think or wear or drink or drive...I doubt Rush has as much impact as Jenifer Anistons hair...he would seem to be preaching to the choir...the only press the Right gets is when some Liberal-type b!tches about it...

Who gets more attention...let's see...Rush Limbaugh is played across the country everyday and has access to an estimated 20 million people EVERY DAY. Susan Sarandon makes a comment or two one day and is wiped under the rug the next.

This notion that the 'liberal mass-media' controls the thoughts of the nation is just about the biggest bit of conspiracy theory that has been trotted out by the right IMHO. In terms of mass television media, all I can say is that CNN, America's "most watched" news source is far more right leaning and biased than anything that we get here in Canada. If you want to see the 'other' side of the war in Iraq, you best start watching the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's coverage because you sure aren't going to see that type of reporting on CNN or any other US news station for that matter. A few nights ago, I watched a documentary that analyzed the rising number of religious radicals that have surfaced throughout the Middle East since the US war on terror began. Over a year ago, I watched a documentary that outlined virtually all of the facts used in MM's film. I watch CNN and other US news broadcasts nightly and have never heard that kind of reporting. As far as I'm concerned, the US networks, especially CNN, are very one-sided in their coverage and that one-side leans to the right, not the left as so many conservatives have argued.

[piece-it pete]

Just a quick note....

Looking back over this thread, it's great, the thing that stands out is our freedom to say what we believe.

Pete

[Resident Loser]

... " Michael Moore and acedimics are called useless wind-bags because they fight for a cause artisitcally and were referred to as not getting a real job..."

I stated MM and other media-types...academics never came into the picture, watch dem Ps&Qs...If I remember me Monty Python correctly, it was Oscar Wilde who said : There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is NOT being talked about". That's MM in a nutshell...He stands to make a profit in all this, and Lord knows he couldn't buy better ad time...Oh yeah sure, his is an honorable fight, altruism at it's purest.

"...ARTISTS therefore = waste of space. Do you not see anything wrong with that equation..."

That wasn't said either...art has it's place...but it surely doesn't put a roof over the heads of those who need one, nor food in the belly or knowledge in yer head.

"...Should life be all about teaching children to make money and become accountants?..."

Never was said, your inference is self-serving...children should be taught how to build those houses, plant those crops and further, taught so they might teach the others that follow...

"...I am not equating every person on the right as those things - history has shown that those things ARE however derived from right wing ideals. Because things are put into boxes of good and evil because God told them so we don't get gray area arguments..."

Something wrong with the simplicity of good and bad? It's those gray areas that let individuals apply misguided reasoning to daily life...no one is looking,should I bother to stop for the STOP sign, should I eat this snack in the store and not pay for it? That sort of thing, like "...it all depends on what your definition of is is..."

"...You commit a crime - does not matter the reason stealing is ALWAYS wrong - hang him..."

YOU are the one oversimplifying things...stealing IS always wrong...extenuating circumstances are handled by the legal system...with full admittance that no system is fool-proof.

"... Abortion is ALWAYS wrong..."

When used as an after-the-fact method of birth control, yes it is IMHO...personal responsibility and/ or abstinence plus the availability of pre-conception methodology renders it so.

"...America is ALWAYS right in whatever the decision the president makes he's a Christian so nothing he does is EVER WRONG..."

Eisenhower was wrong...we should have kept our distance from the zionist nazis in Israel...

Kennedy was wrong...in selling Hawk missles to the zionist state, in the Bay of Pigs, in Vietnam...

Johnson was wrong...in Vietnam...

Nixon was wrong...for being a fool with Watergate...

Carter was wrong...for being ineffectual...

Regan was wrong...for Iran/Contra...

Bush Sr. was wrong...for not finishing-off Saddam the first time...

Clinton was wrong...just plain wrong...for any number of things...

Dubya???...I wouldn't give his troubles to a monkey on a rock!...only history will tell...

"...I make no bones about being anti-religion - I am not anti-God. It's not that I HATE religious people - but I do hate religious people telling me how to run my life. Sorry if I want to drink MYSELF into a stupor and smoke cigarrettes and Pot and subscribe to every porn magazine on the market and I want to have sex orgies with 12 people 7 nights a week then damn it I will..."

Drink all you want, just stay out of your car...and don't run to the government, health insurance or me lookin' for that new liver...be my guest...God(if there is one) allows you that freedom of choice...smoke all you want, just don't subject me or anyone else to your toxic 2nd-hand stench...ditto on the car when your doin' herb...screw all you want, drain yourself dry, maybe you'll aquire the gift that keeps on giving or something worse...we could stand to thin-out the herd...

"...I don;t need some religious goon to tell me that because God says -- err a book written by man says -- that this year Alcohol is illegal and creates a bunch of stupid laws based on majority rules invented and put to a constitution buy a bunch of hethans 200 years ago that this applies today..."

Now, now...remember that separation of church and state...the Mosaic food laws and other guidelines had valid reasons to be codified...Heathens a mere 200 yrs. ago? Hmmm...actually they say it was the "Age Of Enlightenment" and the Constitution is often reffered to as a living document...but what does everyone else know compared to YOU?

"...The governement's job is to stay the hell out of my business..."

Oh, so you ARE a closet Republican and a conservative one at that!

And with regard to your Pizza-Hut bit...your phone number and drivers license ID can provide a ton of info on you...all that data pre-dates 9/11 AND Homeland Security...

jimHJJ(...and your "golden rule"...guess where it comes from...the Bible...New Testament...and BTW, Afghanistan and Iraq can be considered DEFENSIVE now, can't they? Maybe if GORE did it?...and those guns? There may come a time you will be ever so grateful to the NRA...)

[Justlisten2]

My 20 year old son saw the movie a week before I did, I just saw it yesterday. He warned my wife and I, that there was horrible graphic war footage that upset him. After viewing the movie, I had a revelation. The film didn't seem all that graphic to my wife or myself. However, we were raised watching the Vietnam war on television while eating dinner. Dead and mutilated babies were not new to us. The revelation I had was this: It seems that the lesson our government learned from the Vietnam war was to control the media. If you control the media, you can control what people see and hear, thereby control how the think and respond. No more field reporters and cameras on the battlefield. We'll just tell the media that our weapons are clean and 'surgical', and they can pass the word on to our constituants that we're just killing 'bad guys'. No need to see for yourself, we're your government, you can trust us.....

That's why my son was so stunned, he'd never really seen war on TV. The media is under government control now. So when the govenment says this will not be another Vietnam, you have to believe them. It's all in their control. They learned their lesson, don't let civilians see the war.

[piece-it pete]

Justlisten2,

Just look for the BBC world news. War is always hell.

Pete

[RGA]

Treat others as you would have treat you - was put to paper but was already being lived. The Bible is for people afraid of death wanting something to look forward to. Drivel - well witten drivel but drivel nevertheless.

Separation of church and State - looks good on paper but not a reality - War is fought over religion and property.

Michael Moore is an artist - the film in that realm is terrific. It happens to be about a subject matter some people won't like - well the War Zone is about insest and was probably one of the best 10 films I saw during the 1990's - so was Pulp FIction and some would be turned off by its violence - but they are artistically crafted.

Documentarys make pathetic money - he's been doing this for years - since his high school days fighting what he felt was injustice then. You may disagree with him that is fine - but he believes in what he says - this film is making a lot of money so. It's the same stupid argument that a small hick band is great but as soon as they sell a million copies they're now considered a sell-out band.

Keeping the government out of my business is not a Right wing thing - it can be because they tout smaller government but offerring free medical and free prescriptions drugs is not really in MY business but it is a benefit to me. And of course it's not free because the left will tax higher to spread these bbenefits around - see Canada. No staying out of my business is being a Libertarian.

Black and white - yes some issues are some are not - it's all black and white to the religious right. Going into Iraq - Saddam is an evil doer...that would be fine if it were true. I'm glad they got the bastard - but please don't lie to me about the reason why - and yes the reason is important. Plenty of other dictators who are not sitting on oil are just as bad if not worse than Saddam. America is happily sucking 3 million gallons(or was it 3 million dollars worth - either way) of oil per hour out of Iraq as we speak - heck even CNN reported it so it must be true.

There are black and white laws built on the basis that everyone agrees - stop at a stop sign to protect yourself and others (treat other as you would have them treat you) which is not slamming into you at interestions.

Moral issues are not as clear cut - they may be all set in tone according to Bible thumpers - but some of us are intelligent not to rely on such voodoo nonsense. It was perfectly acceptable for them to string up black folk and burn people they thought were witches. Interestingly there is a witch on my campus - nothing to fear from their religious belief system.

On issues of abortion my BELIEF is that it should be a last resort and shouldnot be used as birth control because some idiot forgot to buy a condom. But MY belief is irrelevant - it's up to the party concerned not me sticking my nose into their business because MY belief is different.

[piece-it pete]

Treat others as you would have treat you - was put to paper but was already being lived. The Bible is for people afraid of death wanting something to look forward to. Drivel - well witten drivel but drivel nevertheless.

Interesting that that drivel is the basis for the highly successful system enjoyed by the western world.

Separation of church and State - looks good on paper but not a reality - War is fought over religion and property.

Apparently the Founders' view of separation of Church and State is different from your own.

Michael Moore is an artist - the film in that realm is terrific. It happens to be about a subject matter some people won't like - well the War Zone is about insest and was probably one of the best 10 films I saw during the 1990's - so was Pulp FIction and some would be turned off by its violence - but they are artistically crafted.

Documentarys make pathetic money - he's been doing this for years - since his high school days fighting what he felt was injustice then. You may disagree with him that is fine - but he believes in what he says - this film is making a lot of money so. It's the same stupid argument that a small hick band is great but as soon as they sell a million copies they're now considered a sell-out band.

You are calling MMs' work fiction? Then what is this all about?

Keeping the government out of my business is not a Right wing thing - it can be because they tout smaller government but offerring free medical and free prescriptions drugs is not really in MY business but it is a benefit to me. And of course it's not free because the left will tax higher to spread these bbenefits around - see Canada. No staying out of my business is being a Libertarian.

So the benefit is OK regardless? Isn't that the fear of "Mob rules"?

Black and white - yes some issues are some are not - it's all black and white to the religious right. Going into Iraq - Saddam is an evil doer...that would be fine if it were true. I'm glad they got the bastard - but please don't lie to me about the reason why - and yes the reason is important. Plenty of other dictators who are not sitting on oil are just as bad if not worse than Saddam. America is happily sucking 3 million gallons(or was it 3 million dollars worth - either way) of oil per hour out of Iraq as we speak - heck even CNN reported it so it must be true.

Lieing about the reason. The reason is oil. "Real" instability in the ME would lead to the death of 100s' of thousands, if not millions, due to lack of aid money from weathy nations, due to worldwide depression. Of course those in wealth countries would not starve.

There are black and white laws built on the basis that everyone agrees - stop at a stop sign to protect yourself and others (treat other as you would have them treat you) which is not slamming into you at interestions.

Not everyone agrees with, say, gay "marriage", but you would have the courts force that one. A or B? Or are you pulling a Kerry?

Moral issues are not as clear cut - they may be all set in tone according to Bible thumpers - but some of us are intelligent not to rely on such voodoo nonsense. It was perfectly acceptable for them to string up black folk and burn people they thought were witches. Interestingly there is a witch on my campus - nothing to fear from their religious belief system.

See comment about the civilization in which you live, above.

On issues of abortion my BELIEF is that it should be a last resort and shouldnot be used as birth control because some idiot forgot to buy a condom. But MY belief is irrelevant - it's up to the party concerned not me sticking my nose into their business because MY belief is different.

What about incest, man/boy love, etc? And don't give me that crap about it being different. It's only a matter of degree, not of kind, it is still gov't cohersion.

Pete

[Resident Loser]

...talkin' a furrin' language!

"...Treat others as you would have treat you..."

In the New Testament..."Love thy neighbor as thyself"

"The Bible is for people afraid of death wanting something to look forward to. Drivel - well witten drivel but drivel nevertheless..."

No, that's religion... Marx's panacea for the masses...the Bible is history, geneology, codification of laws and precepts, analogies and lessons using rudimentary and simplistic styles tailored for it's audience, that sort of thing...never read it didya'?

"Separation of church and State - looks good on paper but not a reality - War is fought over religion and property"

What war did the US start over religious reasons? Tell me, as a history student I musta' had chicken pox or something, missed that one...Imperialism, Manifest Destiny, States Rights...got me on that...More wars have been fought in the name of God than any other reason, none started by the USofA. Ali Baba and the boys, that's a whole other thing...

"...Michael Moore is an artist..."

LOL - so was the chimp with a paintbrush whose "work" sold a Sotheby's for a tidy sum...

"...Documentarys make pathetic money - he's been doing this for years..."

Obviously pays well enough to keep him fed...

"Keeping the government out of my business is not a Right wing thing - it can be because they tout smaller government but offerring free medical and free prescriptions drugs is not really in MY business but it is a benefit to me. And of course it's not free because the left will tax higher to spread these bbenefits around - see Canada..."

You seem conflicted on this one...ever consider politics?

"...Black and white - yes some issues are some are not - it's all black and white to the religious right. Going into Iraq - Saddam is an evil doer...that would be fine if it were true. I'm glad they got the bastard - but please don't lie to me about the reason why - and yes the reason is important. Plenty of other dictators who are not sitting on oil are just as bad if not worse than Saddam. America is happily sucking 3 million gallons(or was it 3 million dollars worth - either way) of oil per hour out of Iraq as we speak - heck even CNN reported it so it must be true..."

If Gore had done it, would it be okay? If getting Iraq's economy going to pay for the work we do re-building their infrastructure(in shambles long before our invasion) is a problem, I don't see it. Is CNNs sources as reliable as the NY Times?

"...There are black and white laws built on the basis that everyone agrees - stop at a stop sign to protect yourself and others (treat other as you would have them treat you) which is not slamming into you at interestions. Moral issues are not as clear cut - they may be all set in tone according to Bible thumpers - but some of us are intelligent not to rely on such voodoo nonsense. It was perfectly acceptable for them to string up black folk and burn people they thought were witches. Interestingly there is a witch on my campus - nothing to fear from their religious belief system...."

Bible folk did lynchings? You mean the KKK? Oh, the burning crosses...I think their "religion" was secondary at best...there are extremists in every group....perhaps it was the just Scots-Irish and English, perhaps religion played no part...simply terror, intimidation....Witches weren't burned, they were hanged, generally...one in Salem was pressed...them pesky Puritans...they were burned and drowned and tortured in Europe, not here...

"...On issues of abortion my BELIEF is that it should be a last resort and shouldnot be used as birth control because some idiot forgot to buy a condom. But MY belief is irrelevant - it's up to the party concerned not me sticking my nose into their business because MY belief is different..."

Well, like the song says "...you have to believe in something or you'll fall for anything..."

jimHJJ(...P.S.moral issues NEED to be as clear cut as possible...otherwise you get the Billary and Bubba Show...)

[karl k]

...talkin' a furrin' language!

"...Treat others as you would have treat you..."

In the New Testament..."Love thy neighbor as thyself"

"Loving thyself" is looked down upon by most in the church.

"Separation of church and State - looks good on paper but not a reality - War is fought over religion and property"

What war did the US start over religious reasons? Tell me, as a history student I musta' had chicken pox or something, missed that one...Imperialism, Manifest Destiny, States Rights...got me on that...More wars have been fought in the name of God than any other reason, none started by the USofA. Ali Baba and the boys, that's a whole other thing...

Seems to me the "Cold War" was essentually a war between the Christian way of life and the Athiest/Communist way of life.

"...Michael Moore is an artist..."

LOL - so was the chimp with a paintbrush whose "work" sold a Sotheby's for a tidy sum...

Art is always subjective. This doesn't mean it should be discredited because it is not understood or agreed with.


jimHJJ(...P.S.moral issues NEED to be as clear cut as possible...otherwise you get the Billary and Bubba Show...)

It seems you're implying a specific set of morals should be accepted by all in an effort to make life easier. While a noble cause, I maintain it is not a practicle one in light of the fact that everyone is an individual with their own belief and goals. I would also maintain that for humans to survive, the only clear moral needed can be expressed easily with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

[karl k]

I saw this as a local matinee - Friday was Sold out both shows in my town and pretty full for a Sat Matinee.

I have to say whether I agree with Michael Moore aside his films are damn entertaining. This time he's not in it very much at all and basically lets the politicians let them contradict themselves. It's humourous, sad, angry and unabashadly anti - George W. Bush.

There is nothing necessarily new about most of what has presented - but the advantage of any two hour film is that Moore can get what one person said on tape in 2001 and then what the same person says now - nothing new about Politicians who say the exact opposite things but most people do forget when 2 or 3 years go by.

Some parts he does not follow up - and leaves it more inuendo than fact - but it's rarely weak inuendo and there are a lot of things that should get Americans questioning certain aspects of the film. I would be surprised quite frankly if even die-hard Republicans would not find much in here to at the very least raise an eyebrow at a number of things. Moore managed to get some pretty interesting documents and interviews with cabinet members.

It is a much tighter film than Bowling for Columbine which fudged numbers here and there to make Moore's arguments stronger - but in fact ended up being detrimental to his arguemnt. There is less of his usual in your face style(some is used comically)

He uses almost no numbers this time which got him in trouble in BFC so it's less likely they can be used against him at later dates - again if you get it from the horses mouths themselves you can't be accused of fudging numbers - So I think Moore is far more reigned in here - and because he is and his film is tight it's not surprising certain entities tried to get it stopped - especially certain documents that he attained before the white house blacked out certain sections - CNN got that copy and fed to the people Moore got the uncensored version that we now get in this movie.

Making Bush look silly isn't tough nor is it a real strength in the movie as we all know he is a terrible communicator - but some things you just have to chuckle at.

One weakness is when he talks about the coalition of the willing - he needs to be careful not to weaken his position with omission. Not including the entirety of the facts is a lie of omission and if there is an issue this is it. I can give him a bit of a break because it would be tough on this film-maker's resources to be able to dig in OTHER countries records and that undertaking would be gigantic. He is saved too by the fact that Bush himself was never overly open about it himself.

This is one of the best movies for a movies sake I've seen in a long time - I don't buy all the arguements - some however are undeniable and the film does what you want from an entertainment - Can upset you in one scene and make you laugh out loud a few minutes later. It is one of the few that I've been to that have had people clap at the end. You anti-Moore people just go and have a laugh. I'm probably more left being from Canada but I still enjoy a good joke from Dennis Miller.

because I wanted to see if something would happen. Simply put, I was looking for the moment that someone would be opinionated enough to "ban" the film (that would inevitably be a big hit at the box office) from being viewed by the public. I got wind of such action on my vacation this weekend.

http://www.madville.com/link.php?id=72652&t=16

I recall the same thing happening to "The last temptation of Christ" back in the late 80's or early 90's by Multimedia Cablevision Inc. I think it's a shame that someone has to be the lookout for the moral and ethic welfare of myself and others instead of allowing me and others the right/priveledge of making up my own mind about such things.

How much longer will we be able to experience fiction/non fiction in whatever form before someone out there decides they know what's best for me and institutes total control over what myself and others will experience?

Censorship like this is always targeted at preventing people from asking questions and forming their own opinion. Here's something I ran across in a search for the previous link. It is an interesting read from "A" Michael Moore.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/070504F.shtml

I haven't seen the movie and therefore have no opinion on it's content except for that I should have the oppurtunity to view it and decide for myself whether and to what degree it is factual or not.

[Woochifer]

Got to check out Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend and here's my overall reaction to it.

It's got some rough spots, but for the most part it airs out a lot of relevant items that simply have not seen the light of day. Most of what was presented in the movie I have either read before or seen citations through other articles. The information's out there, it's just not easy to find and does not get a lot of attention through the conventional media sources. Michael Moore's not reinventing the wheel, but he is rounding together a lot of information from a multitude of sources, most of which have been verified by more than one source. Having all these disparate bits of underreported information woven together with more well-known and widely reported stories IMO forms a very coherent set of arguments. You can accept it or reject it, but most of what the film presented is simply developing a thesis and supporting the argument. I haven't seen too many credible contradictions pointing out factual errors in the film, and unlike Bowling for Columbine, this movie does not focus on statistics that can be easily contradicted.

To me, the most damning parts of the film are simply letting Bush and his staffers deflate their own arguments in their own words. Seeing Condi and Powell in their pre-9/11 assessments of terrorism and the Iraq threat is pretty devastating, as is the set of mixed messages shown in how citizens should respond to terrorist threats (do we live our lives, or do we change our ways due to elevated terrorist threats?).

The other effective aspect of the film is pointing out who pays the price for war, and who benefits from it. Interviewing wounded veterans at a VA hospital is something that I've hardly seen at all on TV, and that is a sorely needed perspective. Also, very interesting to hear a soldier, who earns less than $2k/month while getting put in harm's way on a daily basis, talking about how Halliburton's contractors earn $10k/month driving "the same 2 1/2 miles every day". And seeing all those businesses just talking about Iraq as an opportunity to make a boatload of money came across to me as both brutally honest and very distasteful.

Less effective, I think, are some of the arguments about the Saudi connections and the Afghan pipeline. This heavily relies on the Craig Unger book, and a lot of the contentions presented there remain controversial, with not all of it independently verified.

But, the one part of the Saudi story that I thought was thought provoking was the question of why members of the bin Laden family were allowed to leave the country while the national airspace was grounded. This has been one of the stories that right-wing commentators have cited as a factual reach, but in fact last month, officials at Tampa International Airport verified that a flight with Saudi nationals on board had in fact left the airport with special clearance from somebody in the executive branch. As one of the interviewees pointed out, in a murder investigation, the prime suspect's family members are almost always at least interviewed, and to this date, none of the bin Laden family members have been interviewed by U.S. officials.

I also thought that some of the war footage was tacked on for shock value, rather something that adds to the overall argument. And the "before" shots of Baghdad were not necessary at all, and really the only part of the film that I thought played right into Moore's critics.

Another nitpick is that Moore did not point out any of the connections between the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), whose signatories read like a who's who of Bush's foreign policy team, and Bush's foreign policy. Just citing some of the passages from the PNAC statement of principles is eerie in terms of how it lays out a blueprint for how the Administration reacted to 9/11, and the real goals for a post-Saddam Iraq. To me, this is much more persuasive than a lot of the Saudi arguments.

Not a lot of Moore's typical "man on the street" interviews either. In general, they were not as effective with what Fahrenheit 9/11 was trying to present. The only "man on the street" parts of the movie that I found amusing were when he corraled the ice cream truck in D.C. and read the Patriot Act over the megaphone, and when he tried to get congressmen to enlist their kids in the military while pointing out that only one member of Congress has a son serving in Iraq.

Overall, this is a different movie from what Moore typically puts out. It has its share of Moore's trademark sarcasm and gotcha interviews, but it has an edgier and more serious undercurrent to it. In a way, it's more persuasive precisely because Moore took more of a hands off approach to making the argument than his previous movies. The first half of the movie was a pretty typical Moore approach of making sarcastic voiceovers and generally presenting the administration officials as hypocritical buffoons in their own words. The second half of the movie got overly preachy at times, but there's no doubt that in Moore's view, this is a story that must be told. And frankly, I think a healthy debate over the substance of the movie's message can only be a good thing in an election year. If the movie's detractors decide to quibble about nitpicky details, rather than focus on the merits of the big picture, then they only serve to reinforce Moore's arguments by default, which would be a shame.

[Woochifer]

Moore's Public Service
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 2, 2004
Since it opened, "Fahrenheit 9/11" has been a hit in both blue and red America, even at theaters close to military bases. Last Saturday, Dale Earnhardt Jr. took his Nascar crew to see it. The film's appeal to working-class Americans, who are the true victims of George Bush's policies, should give pause to its critics, especially the nervous liberals rushing to disassociate themselves from Michael Moore.

There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?

And for all its flaws, "Fahrenheit 9/11" performs an essential service. It would be a better movie if it didn't promote a few unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren't the reason why millions of people who aren't die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn't. Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven't been doing their job.

For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes, when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children. Nobody had told them that the tales of Mr. Bush's decisiveness and bravery on that day were pure fiction.

Or consider the Bush family's ties to the Saudis. The film suggests that Mr. Bush and his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the ambassador known to the family as Bandar Bush, have tried to cover up the extent of Saudi involvement in terrorism. This may or may not be true. But what shocks people, I think, is the fact that nobody told them about this side of Mr. Bush's life.

Mr. Bush's carefully constructed persona is that of an all-American regular guy — not like his suspiciously cosmopolitan opponent, with his patrician air. The news media have cheerfully gone along with the pretense. How many stories have you seen contrasting John Kerry's upper-crusty vacation on Nantucket with Mr. Bush's down-home time at the ranch?

But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed, financially and personally, with foreign elites — with the Saudis in particular.

Mr. Moore's greatest strength is a real empathy with working-class Americans that most journalists lack. Having stripped away Mr. Bush's common-man mask, he uses his film to make the case, in a way statistics never could, that Mr. Bush's policies favor a narrow elite at the expense of less fortunate Americans — sometimes, indeed, at the cost of their lives.

In a nation where the affluent rarely serve in the military, Mr. Moore follows Marine recruiters as they trawl the malls of depressed communities, where enlistment is the only way for young men and women to escape poverty. He shows corporate executives at a lavish conference on Iraq, nibbling on canapés and exulting over the profit opportunities, then shows the terrible price paid by the soldiers creating those opportunities.

The movie's moral core is a harrowing portrait of a grieving mother who encouraged her children to join the military because it was the only way they could pay for their education, and who lost her son in a war whose justification she no longer understands.

Viewers may come away from Mr. Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true. For example, the film talks a lot about Unocal's plans for a pipeline across Afghanistan, which I doubt had much impact on the course of the Afghan war. Someday, when the crisis of American democracy is over, I'll probably find myself berating Mr. Moore, who supported Ralph Nader in 2000, for his simplistic antiglobalization views.

But not now. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and the ordinary Americans who paid the price.

[RGA]

Other than the whole oil argument which while not provable is interesting from a Haliburton/Cheney perspective. Sonce They're pulling so much oil out as we speak on some argument of Iraq paying for the war they didn't start - you wonder.

The film was enjoyable - if all it does is get people voting and arguing and TALKING about issues instead of sports teams and reality tv shows your country and all countries are better for it. You have the most powerful country in the world which affects MY country and the rest of the planet - And for this I would at least hope that those of you in your country would spend a few minutes and VOTE. If not for your sakes then the rest of the world's. When people look at Bush as a dictator who stole the election with the help of Jeb and fellow cronies - whether it's true or not if the other half of the voting public had actually voted we might not be complaining.

The voting process here is so much easier and when all that hanging chad crap happened I was thinking - "why not start again" a "Do Over" especially in a close race.

Most people who don't vote are I bet are the poorer parts of your country - and most of them probably vote Left.

And as an aside have you seen what has gone on in Florida lately about the thousands of people left off the voters list - and the percentage of them who are Black Democrats. Shocking in my opinion and something that adds more fuel to a conspiracy fire.

[Lord_Magnepan]

Well i just cant wait until the movie gets to germany. I hope it does, otherwise my buddy needs to send me a copy as soon as it gets on DVD.

Over here in germany we all think those are the reasons for why Bush went into Iraq.

1. He wanted the oil
2. Daddy told him so
3. He used the "Terror" argument and abused the state of shock in the US

Some Facts

1. There was absolutly NO fact that proves that Iraq was a threat to the US in the
connection with Terrorism !
2. The US abandoned his partners over here in Europe
3. The Iraq people will never be Democratic !! There whole sosiety was based on a
dictatorship
4. 99% are religious fanatics. Women have a lower social class and it will never end.
5. The US made a breeding place for Terrorism.
6. The world aint saver now then it was before.

The thing that really pi**es me off is that America put themselves over the rest of the world. We are the best, We are right and you are wrong. The American News coverage is a joke, members of the US Army pissed people. Sexually abused prisioners, stopped the Red Cross from helping prisioners which were held in captivity for no apperant reason.

Now, i hate terrorism and i hate religious fanatics. But the US needs to get the facts straight.

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by beating your prisioners ?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by invading a country with "0" facts that this country is a threat to you ?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by having a president which says that "GOD" told him so? <-- sorta fanatic isnt it????

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by putting yourself over the rest of the world?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by abusing prisoners, beating prisoners, sexually abusing prisoners?

The war was and is a complete disaster, more people died after the war than in the war. You guys stuck a bees nest and it will swarm you now, and if you wouldnt have put your thick head over the world, then maybe you would have some allies that stand beside you cause they think your right, and not becuase they need your money.

Just my opinion.

PS: I do hope that you guys get out of there quicky and save. I used to live in the US for 5 yeras, and i think that the word "freedom" does not apply.

[Resident Loser]

""Loving thyself" is looked down upon by most in the church. "

You know what I and the quote mean, the Bible has been dismissed as so much religious claptrap(which it may or may not be)...I merely pointed out the seeming dichotomy of the poster's statement: mentioning it, oblivious to its' Biblical roots...

"Seems to me the "Cold War" was essentually a war between the Christian way of life and the Athiest/Communist way of life."

Funny, I thought it was the totalitarianism of Stalin and statements like Kruschev's when he said "We will bury you", the Iron Curtain...more of the socio-political ideology as opposed to any particular religious bent...Any mention of "godless communism" was simply to further highlight the differences between those ideologies. You interpret it a some sort of "crusade"?

"Art is always subjective. This doesn't mean it should be discredited because it is not understood or agreed with."

Discredited? How? I merely compared the work of two of the greater apes...a dictate of my muse...it's your interpretation of my artform that so characterizes it as anything else...

"jimHJJ(...P.S.moral issues NEED to be as clear cut as possible...otherwise you get the Billary and Bubba Show...)

It seems you're implying a specific set of morals should be accepted by all in an effort to make life easier. While a noble cause, I maintain it is not a practicle one in light of the fact that everyone is an individual with their own belief and goals. I would also maintain that for humans to survive, the only clear moral needed can be expressed easily with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"..."

One needs guidelines...the only sets I'm aware of in the Bible are the Ten Commandments in the Old testament and the New Testament's reduction of them to two by Christ, namely: loving God and loving ones neighbor as one self...Like the US Constitution, the last may open to some level of interpretation, but they provide the basis of recognizing good and bad, on or off, zeros and ones....

jimHJJ(...it's amazing how so many can criticize the Bilble without the slightest familiarity with it...)

[piece-it pete]

Well i just cant wait until the movie gets to germany. I hope it does, otherwise my buddy needs to send me a copy as soon as it gets on DVD.

Over here in germany we all think those are the reasons for why Bush went into Iraq.

1. He wanted the oil
2. Daddy told him so
3. He used the "Terror" argument and abused the state of shock in the US

Some Facts

1. There was absolutly NO fact that proves that Iraq was a threat to the US in the
connection with Terrorism !
2. The US abandoned his partners over here in Europe
3. The Iraq people will never be Democratic !! There whole sosiety was based on a
dictatorship
4. 99% are religious fanatics. Women have a lower social class and it will never end.
5. The US made a breeding place for Terrorism.
6. The world aint saver now then it was before.

The thing that really pi**es me off is that America put themselves over the rest of the world. We are the best, We are right and you are wrong. The American News coverage is a joke, members of the US Army pissed people. Sexually abused prisioners, stopped the Red Cross from helping prisioners which were held in captivity for no apperant reason.

Now, i hate terrorism and i hate religious fanatics. But the US needs to get the facts straight.

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by beating your prisioners ?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by invading a country with "0" facts that this country is a threat to you ?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by having a president which says that "GOD" told him so? <-- sorta fanatic isnt it????

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by putting yourself over the rest of the world?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by abusing prisoners, beating prisoners, sexually abusing prisoners?

The war was and is a complete disaster, more people died after the war than in the war. You guys stuck a bees nest and it will swarm you now, and if you wouldnt have put your thick head over the world, then maybe you would have some allies that stand beside you cause they think your right, and not becuase they need your money.

Just my opinion.

PS: I do hope that you guys get out of there quicky and save. I used to live in the US for 5 yeras, and i think that the word "freedom" does not apply.

Lord Magnepan,

Great name!

You guys thought the same thing thing about Reagan.

I'm not going to go point-by-point, I've done that and gotten NO responses other than "Bush is a bad guy".

The war in Iraq is an unmitigated success, and will go down in military history books. The political end? Up to the Iraqis.

We've stationed troops in your country since ww2. Have we raped and looted it?

What about Russias' info? How much DON'T we know? I figure it'll be 15-25 years before all the facts come out.

And please explain why we here are not free.

Pete

PS Where's the swarm??

[Keith from Canada]

"The war in Iraq is an unmitigated success, and will go down in military history books. The political end? Up to the Iraqis."

-- Again, this depends on how you look at it. The American military and the majority on the right view the war on Iraq as an "unmitigated success". Those who opt to take a critical stance argue that history will indeed tell the tale. If it is correct that the war has spawned an entirely new faction of religious fanatics throughout the Middle East and only worked to exacerbate hatred of the US and the West, then I would have to say that the war was an unmitigated failure. I for one find it incredibly difficult to believe that the war has in fact achieved its target and reduced the number of terrorists and their backers especially when you consider the fact that very few of the religious fanatics that make-up the terrorist organizations actually come from Iraq. The schools of hatred are continuing unabated in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

In regards to the political end, I quite agree, it is up to the Iraqis. If I were to cast a critical eye on that however, I would argue that the Iraqi people are not ready to govern themselves in a 'democracy'...especially one that is viewed as being backed by the US government. In doing so, the US is asking them to go against historically engrained religious and cultural beliefs that have been in place for thousands of years. I do not see a democracy unfolding anytime soon in Iraq.

Of course, on both accounts, I hope that I'm wrong...

[piece-it pete]

"The war in Iraq is an unmitigated success, and will go down in military history books. The political end? Up to the Iraqis."

-- Again, this depends on how you look at it. The American military and the majority on the right view the war on Iraq as an "unmitigated success". Those who opt to take a critical stance argue that history will indeed tell the tale. If it is correct that the war has spawned an entirely new faction of religious fanatics throughout the Middle East and only worked to exacerbate hatred of the US and the West, then I would have to say that the war was an unmitigated failure. I for one find it incredibly difficult to believe that the war has in fact achieved its target and reduced the number of terrorists and their backers especially when you consider the fact that very few of the religious fanatics that make-up the terrorist organizations actually come from Iraq. The schools of hatred are continuing unabated in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

In regards to the political end, I quite agree, it is up to the Iraqis. If I were to cast a critical eye on that however, I would argue that the Iraqi people are not ready to govern themselves in a 'democracy'...especially one that is viewed as being backed by the US government. In doing so, the US is asking them to go against historically engrained religious and cultural beliefs that have been in place for thousands of years. I do not see a democracy unfolding anytime soon in Iraq.

Of course, on both accounts, I hope that I'm wrong...

Keith,

I wasn't very clear, I meant the actual "war" and the way it was handled will go into the books. As far as the terrorists, I agree, time will tell, we're just guessing to a large degree, and honest men can disagree.

The gov'ts of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now cracking down hard on these folks, they're a threat to those regimes as well. Again, who knows what the outcome will be?

We're on the same page with the Iraqis, as well. It seems doubtful that a true democracy will emerge. Look at the current Prime Minister, it's been said that he doesn't think so, either. However I think the Iraqis will be much happier under a benevolet dictatorship than Saddam or Iran. And frankly we're not too worried about that, we just need a non-aggresive Iraq for regional stability. But it IS the common Iraqis' big chance, I hope too that they succeed.

Pete

[Resident Loser]

"How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by beating your prisioners ?"

This from the country that practically invented concentration camps and ghettos!

"How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by invading a country with "0" facts that this country is a threat to you ?"

Like Poland's threat to the Reich?

"How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by having a president which says that "GOD" told him so? <-- sorta fanatic isnt it????"

Didn't Uncle Adolph have a fortune teller?

"How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by putting yourself over the rest of the world?"

"Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles"...I think that's how the song goes...

"How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by abusing prisoners, beating prisoners, sexually abusing prisoners?"

"Dr. Mengele, paging Dr. Mengele"

"The war was and is a complete disaster, more people died after the war than in the war."

Who said that? Goebels? Himmler? Eichmann?

"... then maybe you would have some allies that stand beside you cause they think your right, and not becuase they need your money..."

Stop taking it then. If not for us "thick headed" Americans, Europe probably wouldn't exist...If not for us, there would still be TWO Germany's...that's of course if we didn't stop bombing you back into the stone-age!

jimHJJ(...Just MY opinion, Lord Magpie...)

[karl k]

"Loving thyself" is looked down upon by most in the church. "

You know what I and the quote mean, the Bible has been dismissed as so much religious claptrap(which it may or may not be)...I merely pointed out the seeming dichotomy of the poster's statement: mentioning it, oblivious to its' Biblical roots...

The two quotes(yours and RGA's) are one in the same. Whether it is quoted in the Bible or not, in the old or new testiment is irrelevent to me. Loving thyself as thy neighbor IMO leaves room for interpretation where "do unto others" does not... as much. FWIW, I do agree that what is written in the Bible does contain more than "religious claptrap".

"Loving thyself"... just having a little fun. An example of what can happen when you take the "word" too literally instead of figuratively.

"Seems to me the "Cold War" was essentually a war between the Christian way of life and the Athiest/Communist way of life."

Funny, I thought it was the totalitarianism of Stalin and statements like Kruschev's when he said "We will bury you", the Iron Curtain...more of the socio-political ideology as opposed to any particular religious bent...Any mention of "godless communism" was simply to further highlight the differences between those ideologies. You interpret it a some sort of "crusade"?

Isn't it also funny that difference, in that context, was brought up by us? I was only implying that WE used religion in an effort to rally support for that war and insite patriotism in our society. Don't kid yourself, there were alot of references to "Godless Communism" back in the 50's and 60's. Now that we look back on it, we tend to forget those moments for some reason much like we will forget about not finding the big cash of WMD's in another 50yrs.

"Art is always subjective. This doesn't mean it should be discredited because it is not understood or agreed with."

Discredited? How? I merely compared the work of two of the greater apes...a dictate of my muse...it's your interpretation of my artform that so characterizes it as anything else...

Touche'! Being a person of sarchasm myself, I should have recognized the artform.

"jimHJJ(...P.S.moral issues NEED to be as clear cut as possible...otherwise you get the Billary and Bubba Show...)

It seems you're implying a specific set of morals should be accepted by all in an effort to make life easier. While a noble cause, I maintain it is not a practicle one in light of the fact that everyone is an individual with their own belief and goals. I would also maintain that for humans to survive, the only clear moral needed can be expressed easily with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"..."

One needs guidelines...the only sets I'm aware of in the Bible are the Ten Commandments in the Old testament and the New Testament's reduction of them to two by Christ, namely: loving God and loving ones neighbor as one self...Like the US Constitution, the last may open to some level of interpretation, but they provide the basis of recognizing good and bad, on or off, zeros and ones....

Agreed. Although, the Bible also uses the stories within to backup the basic rules and expand on them so in reality, the whole book and its content are the set of guidelines... not just the commandments. While I am a believer in the commandments as a good guide to successfully living ones life, interfacing with others, and promoting the continuation of the human species, I don't subscribe to rest of the Bible as a black and white guide as others sometimes do.

jimHJJ(...it's amazing how so many can criticize the Bilble without the slightest familiarity with it...)

It is also amazing how someone can be so familiar with it considering it's inherent openess to interpretation through the language it uses.


jimHJJ... is that Jim H junior junior?