What is it about Michael Moore that makes you so mad?

Fahrenheit 9/11 - what is incorrect or misleading?

Published on November 15, 2004 By Cappy1507 In Politics

I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 last night online.

I thought the film was interesting, and I've been working on a blog about the Bush Dynasty, especially their finances. Most of what Moore talked about in that regard I have found else where on the web. I don't think there is much argument about the fact that the Bush family is into Oil, and you can't be in the Oil Business with out being tied with the Saudis. I mean really, you can't deny that the two go hand in hand.

I think it is unfortunate that the President and his family have had a long term relationship with the family of the world’s most infamous terrorist, but their relationship goes back way before bin Laden was a terrorist. I think it does put GWB in a compromising position. I'm not sure why he ran for President knowing that these types of allegations could arise. I also don't think I would seek office again if I knew by doing so I would probably have to seek out the son of a friend and business partner and kill him if it came to that. But he did and we elected him. So gods bless him and his resolve.

What I don't understand is why Michael Moore makes Republicans recoil in horror at the mention of his name. After dinner this evening I mentioned to my step dad, a republican, that I had seen the movie and that it was both interesting and a bit over the top. I think that's a very fair statement. Being a moderate independent I think I have a clearer eye than most Democrats or Republicans.

I told step dad I was looking into the Bush Family finances for a blog I was working on, and he looked at me like I just killed god. I told him about the Prescott Bush information that I had found, and he told me it was a lie. I told him the Alien Seizure vesting order 248 specifically named Prescott Bush and the Union Banking company. I told him about the New York Times article that stated the firm had been relocated to the Alien Seizure Custodian offices but buried the seizure, which was quite out of the ordinary. Again he denied it as Leftist BS. I mean it's a matter of public record. Hundreds of records are entered in the US Alien Property records in the Justice Department records. Why would this be falsified?

I told him that I had also looked into the Carlyle Group and could verify on their own web page that George Bush Senior was in fact on the board as was a bin Laden only a few years ago. But again I was waved off as some kind of nut. I don't get it. I reminded him of Neil Bush's incontrovertible link to the S&L Crisis. I pointed out that George Bush Sr, had lied repeatedly about his involvement in Iran Contra, and that this had all been made public record in the commission report, and that entries in Bushes personal diary from the time made specific mention of meetings with Ollie North and John Poindexter despite his testimony otherwise. I decided that I had pushed his blood pressure to the safe limit, and backed down before it became an all out argument. But it makes me wonder....

So for you republicans that have seen F911 what is it exactly that you refute? I just want to get a feel for the republican take on the film.

Please do not say things like Michael Moore is a liar - or he's full of crap. I want specifics of what he said, and why it is false. I'd like a non confrontational discussion so if you’re not capable of that please move along. Think of this as not an opportunity to defend President Bush, but more of a chance to enlighten me (a non combatant at least on this blog) and set the record straight.

Comments (Page 2)

Myrrander

on Nov 16, 2004

Mike's a good guy. A bit too keen on self-promotion for my taste, but I like him. And I've read all the "answer" sites about his movies -- they play just as fast and loose with the truth (many more so) as they claim Mike does in his films.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 16, 2004

imply? hell if one of the founders of project for a new american century and a signatory to the pnac's 1998 letter calling on clinton to invade iraq and overthrow hussein (essentially the program that was put into play under the current president and the reason it appears so obvious that this was part of the bush administration agenda since long before 9/11) isnt a neocon, he musta developed antineocon vaccine while he was with searle. he's been associated with them, appointed them, worked with them and may be about to go down for/with them.

You think the New American Century equals Neo-con? Ha ha ha. There are Democrats signed to the 1998 leter to call Clinton to invade Iraq. Are they neo-con? Jesus Christ. The letter they signed in 1998 means nothing of what you said. In 1997, John Kerry called for unilateral action against Saddam. Is he a neo-con? Ha ha ha In that 1998 letter you mentioned, do you bother to noticed that Richard L. Armirage, Francis Fukuyama also signed it. Ha ha ha Are there neo-con signed that letter? Sure, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz are the two most famous ones.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 16, 2004

5. The critic picked on the really unimportant points in an attempt to discredit everything Moore says. I've lied on occasion in my life, most of us have, but that doesn't mean I can't speak the truth.

Didn't I point out an important point? If Moore implies that Iraq War is a distraction to capture the most dangerous man to us, Osma bin Laden, but at the same time he privately believed and actually openly said bin Laden is innocent, then is just plain illogical. I believe that is not an unimportant point, as Moore tried to claimed that Iraq War is a distraction.

The Tormentor

on Nov 16, 2004

The right gets its message across in the media, the middle gets its message across in the media.

Yeah.... we all believe that one. Republicans get sooo much television time

. Lets see in the elections Bush got about 20 seconds on the news and Kerry about 1 minute. And thats not even in depth.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 16, 2004

GW Bush used a man hated by his dad.

hmmmm ill let that one simmer a while uncommented; it really is too tempting but...

Seriously. The inside story is always that HW Bush and Rumsfeld dislike each other alot. Just as today, you hear Powell and Cheney dislike each other. As for the facts that Reagan sent Rumsfeld to see Saddam does not mean Iraq and American forged any alliance. Clinton sent Carter to N. Korea too. What does that mean? Even though Rumsfeld was not hated by Reagan, he was not in power. Bush has also sent out a bunch of no name people for convey. People who get to sent out for a convey do not make national decision. They do their job as messenger -- which is important, but they are not allowed to act on their opinion. Such that, Rumsfeld was not "in power", he was not a decision maker. There are tons of people sent out for convey every year by G W. Bush, do you think they are all in power. Be consistency.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 16, 2004

I am going to cut and paste some defintion of a neocon here. I think some not all reader have no idea what a neocon. Neocon, in fact, are mostly FDR Democrats. Later, they are joined by Teddy Rooverselt Repubicans. Democrats got changed so much they forgot who they once were. Anyway, Rumsfeld and Cheney are not FDR Democrats and they are not neo-con. They were in power when Nixon was president. How can they be neo-con?

Beliefs
This political group supported a militant anticommunism; more social welfare spending than was acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives; and sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda, being more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law. They feuded with traditional right-wing Republicans, and the nativist, protectionist, isolationists once represented by ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan.

But domestic policy does not define neoconservatism; it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, opposition to communism during the Cold War, free trade, and opposition to Middle Eastern states that are perceived to pursue terrorism or anti-Israel policies. Thus, their foremost target was the conservative but pragmatic approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon, i.e., peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control, détente and containment (rather than rollback) of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the process that would lead to bilateral ties between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the U.S. Today, a rift still divides the neoconservatives from many members of the State Department, who favor established foreign policy conventions.

Intellectually, neoconservatives have been strongly influenced by a diverse range of thinkers from Max Shachtman 's strongly anti-Soviet version of Trotskyism (in the area of international policy) to the elitist, ostensibly neo-Platonic ideas of Leo Strauss.

[edit]
Origins
Neoconservatives are conservatives who are "new" (neo) to the conservative movement in some way. Usually, this comes as a result from the migration from the left of the political spectrum to the right, over the course of many years. Though every such neoconservative has an individual story to tell, there are several key events in recent American history that are often said to have prompted the shift.

Many of today's most famous neocons are from Eastern European Jewish immigrant families, who were frequently on the edge of poverty. The Great Depression radicalized many immigrants, and introduced them to the new and revolutionary ideas of socialism and communism.

The Soviet Union's break with Stalinism in the 1950's led to the rise of the so-called New Left in America, which popularized anti-Sovietism along with anti-capitalism. The New Left became very popular among the children of hardline Communist families.

Opposition to the New Left and Détente with the Soviet Union
Later to emerge as the first important group of social policy critics from the working class, the original neoconservatives, though not yet using this term, were generally liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Second World War. Multiple strands contributed to their ideas, including the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman. The current neoconservative desire to spread democratic capitalism abroad often by force, it is sometimes said, parallels the Trotskyist dream of world socialist revolution. The influence of the Trotskyites perhaps left them with strong anti-Soviet tendencies, especially considering the Great Purges targeting alleged Trotskyites in Soviet Russia. A number of neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were Shachtmanites in their youth while others were involved in the Social Democrats, USA, which was formed by Schachtman's supporters in the 1970s.

The original "neoconservative" theorists, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were often associated with the magazine Commentary, and their intellectual evolution is quite evident in that magazine over the course of these years. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the early neoconservatives were anti-Communist socialists strongly supportive of the civil rights movement, integration, and Martin Luther King. However, they grew disillusioned with the Johnson administration's Great Society. Some neoconservatives also came to despise the counterculture of the 1960s and what they felt was a growing "anti-Americanism" among many baby boomers, in the movement against the Vietnam War and in the emerging New Left.

According to Irving Kristol, former managing editor of Commentary and now a Senior Fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the Publisher of the hawkish magazine The National Interest, a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality." Broadly sympathetic to Woodrow Wilson's idealistic goals to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives.

As the radicalization of the New Left pushed these intellectuals further to the right in response, they moved toward a more aggressive militarism. Admiration of the "big stick" interventionist foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt remains a common theme in neoconservative tracts as well. Now staunch anti-Communists, a vast array of sympathetic conservatives attracted to their strong defense of a "rolling-back" of Communism (an idea touted under the Eisenhower administration by traditional conservative John Foster Dulles) began to become associated with these neoconservative leaders. Influential periodicals such as Commentary, The New Republic, The Public Interest, and The American Spectator, and lately The Weekly Standard have been established by prominent neoconservatives or regularly host the writings of neoconservative writers.

drmiler

on Nov 16, 2004

Reply #15 By: Champas Socialist - 11/16/2004 3:51:13 AM
"Please do not say things like Michael Moore is a liar - or he's full of crap. I want specifics of what he said, and why it is false. I'd like a non confrontational discussion"

"If as you said that you have done your research, then you should know Michael Moore is a liar. If you don't even know that, then you should go back to do some more researchs before posting an article. To be honest, I am embarrassed for you, and you should too."

And my dear Chemical, I am embarrassed for you. Cappy did do research and was asking for what it was that you refute. Moore's alleged distortion is debatable, but you can't just blanketly decide that everything he says is a lie. I mean, you do agree with him that George Bush lives in the White House, right?

Don, B ,you get an insightful from me.

What I have seen of the criticisms of Moore largely relate to one of the following:
1. The critic simply didn't get the joke.
2. The critic didn't realise it was a joke.
3. Moore stated his opinion or his interpretation straight after he had presented a fact, and the critic didn't make the same interpretation and thus decided the fact was incorrect, not just Moore's interpretation
4. The critic doesn't understand hyperbole and the importance of context.
5. The critic picked on the really unimportant points in an attempt to discredit everything Moore says. I've lied on occasion in my life, most of us have, but that doesn't mean I can't speak the truth.
6. The critic misunderstood the point Moore was making.

There are some legitimaite criticisms, as there are of any journalist. Contrary to the impression they like to give, they are simply fallible human beings. Moore is no different.

That's where you would be incorrect. The following is from MSN. Link

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

Moore: Trying to have it three ways

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

And this is from factcheck.org

Summary

This anti-Bush radio ad is among the worst distortions we've seen in what has become a very ugly campaign. It states as fact some of the most sensational falsehoods that Michael Moore merely insinuated in his anti-Bush movie Farenheit 9/11 .

The ad was released Oct. 25 by The Media Fund, an independent Democratic group run by former Clinton deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes. It falsely claims that members of the bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the US "when most other air traffic was grounded," though in fact commercial air traffic had resumed a week earlier.

The ad also falsely claims that the bin Laden family members were not "detained," when in fact 22 of them were questioned by the FBI before being allowed to leave -- and their plane was searched as well.

And by the way, the man who gave approval for the flight wasn't Bush or even any of his close aides, it was former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, now one of Bush's strongest critics.

Analysis

This one is wrong, wrong, wrong. Let us count the ways:

Media Fund Radio Ad

"Flight Home"

Announcer: After nearly 3,000 Americans were killed, while our nation was mourning the dead and the wounded, the Saudi royal family was making a special request of the Bush White House. As a result, nearly two dozen of Osama bin Laden's family members were rounded up...

Not to be arrested or detained, but to be taken to an airport, where a chartered jet was waiting...to return them to their country. They could have helped us find Osama bin Laden. Instead the Bush White House had Osama's family flown home, on a private jet, in the dead of night, when most other air traffic was grounded.

We don't know whether Osama's family members would have told us where bin Laden was hiding. But thanks to the Bush White House...we'll never find out.

Air Traffic Not Grounded

The ad is as false as it can be when it claims the bin Laden family members flew home "when most other air traffic was grounded" following the attacks of September 11, 2001. In fact, according to the final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission), the bin Laden flight was on Sept. 20. (See footnote 28 in the 9/11 Commission's report in "supporting documents" at right). That was one week after the FAA allowed commercial air traffic to resume at 11am on Sept. 13.

By that time all major airports in the US had re-opened, with the sole exception of Washington DC's Reagan National airport, which the bin Laden flight didn't use.

The bin Laden family members were among a number of other Saudi citizens and government officials who left the US on special charter flights because they feared possible reprisals in the emotional aftermath that swept the US in the days after the 9/11 attacks. Neither the FBI nor the 9/11 Commission has found any of the departing Saudis had any links to terrorism:

9/11 Commission (page 330): The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion.
Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights .

Bin Laden Family Was Questioned

The ad is also false when it says members of the bin Laden family were not "detained." In fact, the 9/11 Commission report states that the FBI questioned 22 of the 26 passengers on the bin Laden flight, some of them in detail. The FBI first checked faces of the passengers against passports to confirm identities, and also ran all names through several law-enforcement databases. It even searched the aircraft:

9/11 Commission (page 557 & 558): Twenty-two of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. . . . The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft.

The FBI had previously investigated two of the passengers on the bin Laden flight but had closed their cases prior to 9/11 after turning up "no derogatory information," according to the Commission's report. And in the years since then, the FBI has found no reason to re-open those cases.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission said the bin Laden family members might not have been interviewed had they simply departed the country in the usual way, rather than on a charter flight with special White House clearance:

9/11 Commission (page 557): Having an opportunity to check the Saudis was useful to the FBI. This was because the U.S. government did not, and does not, routinely run checks on foreigners who are leaving the United States. This procedure was convenient to the FBI, as the Saudis who wished to leave in this way would gather and present themselves for record checks and interviews, an opportunity that would not be available if they simply left on regularly scheduled commercial flights.

In other words, had the bin Laden family members merely driven across the border to Canada and flown home from there, they probably would not have been questioned at all.

Bush White House

The ad gives a false impression when it says the "Bush White House" made the decision agreeing to the Saudi government's request. Neither President Bush nor any of his immediate aides had anything to do with the decision.

Richard Clarke -- the national security aide who later became one of Bush's strongest public critics -- testified repeatedly that he made the decision to allow the flights, after consulting with the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

9/11 Commission (page 329): We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. . . . Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."

Clarke had been the top anti-terrorism aide in the White House under Clinton, then stayed on under Bush. Since leaving the Bush White House he has become an outspoken critic of the current administration, accusing the Bush team of ignoring his recommendations prior to the September 11 attacks.

What Michael Moore Didn't Say

This ad rushes in where even Michael Moore feared to tread in his anti-Bush movie Fahrenheit 9/11 . Moore merely led viewers to believe -- but never actually stated -- that the bin Laden flight left while US airspace was closed. And viewers who listened closely -- very closely -- might have heard Moore acknowledge that the bin Ladens were in fact interviewed by the FBI before being allowed to leave. Here's the way Moore manipulated his viewers:

Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11): In the days following September 11th, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded. The FAA has taken action to close all of the airports in the United States. Even grounding the President's father, former President Bush, on a flight forced to land in Milwaukee. Dozens of travelers stranded, among them, Ricky Martin, due to perform at tonight's Latin Grammy awards. Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens.

(video of plane taking off... song, "We've got to get out of this place") . . .
It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.

(video of Osama bin Laden)

Notice that Moore drops in the words "after September 13" without explaining the significance of that date -- the day airspace reopened to commercial traffic at 11am. Viewers were invited to believe from all that Moore said before that airspace was still closed, when in fact it was not. That's a false insinuation, but not a false statement.

Moore went on to interview a retired FBI agent who stated that "I think it would have been prudent, hand the subpoenas out, have 'em come in, get on the record. You know, get on the record." Perhaps, being retired, that agent wasn't aware that the FBI had interviewed the bin Laden family members. In any case, Moore didn't correct him.

Moore also presented an interview with Craig Unger, author of the book House of Bush, House of Saud :

Moore: Did the authorities do anything when the bin Ladens tried to leave the country?

Unger: No, they were identified at the airport, they looked at their passports, and they were identified.

Moore: But that's what would happen to you or I if we were...

Unger: Exactly. Exactly.

Moore: So a little interview, check the passport, what else?

Unger: Nothing.

So Moore knew the bin Ladens had been interviewed when he made the movie. Those three words -- "a little interview" -- are difficult to hear on the movie soundtrack, however. One blogger who posted an "unofficial transcript" of the movie missed them at first, recording that line as "So what did they do , they checked the passports, what else?" He later went back to correct the transcript after another pointed out the discrepancy.

(Unger's book, published in March of this year, reports that the FBI was only able to check papers and identify everyone on the bin Laden flight. That is contradicted by the more authoritative Commission report, published July 22, 2004. The Commission interviewed, among others, the FBI agent who supervised the questioning of the bin Laden family members.)

So, as misleading as Moore's sly insinuations are on this point, his movie isn't as bad as the Media Fund's outright falsehoods

Link

These are just 2 of many!

Cappy1507

on Nov 16, 2004

Reply By: ChemicalkineticsPosted: Tuesday, November 16, 20045. The critic picked on the really unimportant points in an attempt to discredit everything Moore says. I've lied on occasion in my life, most of us have, but that doesn't mean I can't speak the truth.Didn't I point out an important point? If Moore implies that Iraq War is a distraction to capture the most dangerous man to us, Osma bin Laden, but at the same time he privately believed and actually openly said bin Laden is innocent, then is just plain illogical. I believe that is not an unimportant point, as Moore tried to claimed that Iraq War is a distraction.

I think what Moore believes is unimportant on this issue - think his argument is regardless of what he believed, his critisism was of the contradictory actions of the administration. The administration has pointed to OBL as the most dangerous terrorist and made him #1 on the most wanted list. Moore is stating that they went after Iraq, and that went contrary to their decision that OBL was the target.

I don't think you can deny that at some point the target changed from OBL to Saddam. We were given various reasons as to why that decision was made, WMD, Harboring Terrorist, Money to al Quaeda. Most of those didn't pan out. And now OBL #2 on the most wanted list behind a coke dealer from columbia.

T B

on Nov 16, 2004

The critic didn't realise it was a joke

Wait a minute, is it a joke? Or is it a documentary? Most documentaries I know of (and I'm no media expert) are not satirical or parodies. Did I miss something here?

I'd say that the Dave Kopel (who BTW is a Democrat that supported Nader in 2000, as did Moore) piece (linked in reply #9) says it all with regard to Moore. Also, isn't it at least a little curious that guys like Kopel and Dick Morris (Fahrenhype 9/11, and a former Clinton advisor) saw fit to debunk Moore's propaganda? I mean these guys are not critics pushing some right wing agenda. If Moore was putting out pieces that were self admittedly satirical, I don't think the reaction would be the same as making claims they are documentaries.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 16, 2004

You are missing the most important factor. First, my original post is about answering someone why Moore is a liar. Well, if he believes Osama bin Laden is innocent and he also accuses the adminstration for going after the wrong target. Isn't that a contriction? Is going after an innocent man (bin Laden) the right target then? At least we know Saddam is guilty of something -- brenching a cease-fire agreement for 12 years.

It is simple to complain. Little kids do that best. But it is more important to have a stand. I can complain about that the tax is too high for Americans and the government is not providing enough programs at the same time, but those two are abit contradict with each other. I took no stand on that issue. If I believed Bush tax cut is too great, but I made a movie about Bush should be cutting more tax -- then I am lying. If I only want to marry a virgin, but I told my girlfriend that I want to have sex with her before marrying her, then I lied. What is so difficult about Moore has lied. For you to say Moore's belief is unimportant in determining if he is a liar or not -- is completely beyond me. If I believe in one thing and try to sell you an opposite concept. I am lying. Lying has everything to do with one's mental state. That is why a calculator or a computer does not lie. Yes, they can give you the wrong answer, but that can only be described as "misleading", because it wasn't like they knew the right answer and hide it from you. If I believed it is sunny outside and told you so even it was really raining, I have misleaded you. If I knew it is rainy outside and told you it is sunny, then I have lied to you. So please think a little bit before you write your next post. Moore's belief is the key, it is not Unimportant.
I like to answer some of your comment. First, the War on Terror is not the War on Osama bin Laden. We know by capturing bin Laden, the war does not end. I do agree with the adminstration thinking that after the fact bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Taliban was kicked out of Afghan and seriously weaken. Saddam was increaing more threatening.

messybuu

on Nov 16, 2004

It's quite easy to tell what's a joke and what isn't in the movie. If it's been proven incorrect, then it's clearly a joke that all of Michael Moore's supporters got immediately. If not, then it isn't a joke.

Cappy1507

on Nov 16, 2004

If I believe in one thing and try to sell you an opposite concept. I am lying.

A. No you are not lying.
B. That's not what I'm saying is going on in this scenerio.

If you say "I love chocolate ice cream."

Then I watch you order Vanilla ice cream after dinner for weeks at a time.

So I say, "Chocolate musn't be your favorite Ice Cream if you keep ordering Vanilla."

To which you reply, "I don't think much about chocolate, in fact since I've already eaten most of chocolates friends, Chocolate fudge, Chocolate ripple, and Chocolate chip, I'm not that worried about chocolate. Chocolate is hiding in some cave somewhere and Vanilla has WMD, and has been giving chocolate money for years. SO BITE ME I'm eating Vanilla - It's dangerous and has a bad case of Neoplotian Syndrome.

I am not lying when I said "Chocolate musn't be your favorite Ice Cream if you keep ordering Vanilla."

Cappy1507

on Nov 16, 2004

Nothing like "good humor" to keep things lite.

T B

on Nov 16, 2004

The current dominant media is the screen, and screen communication is more entertainment-centered than logic and accuracy-centered

AP May 24, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11 was the first documentary to win Cannes’ prestigious Palme d’Or since Jacques Cousteau’s The Silent World in 1956.

Moore and Cousteau? Isn't this an apples and cumquats comparison? Isn't the REAL issue calling his film(s) a documentary? Isn't a documentary a news film without fictionlization?

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 16, 2004

Reply #30 By: Cappy1507 - 11/16/2004 9:47:51 PM
If I believe in one thing and try to sell you an opposite concept. I am lying.

A. No you are not lying.
B. That's not what I'm saying is going on in this scenerio.

If you say "I love chocolate ice cream."

Then I watch you order Vanilla ice cream after dinner for weeks at a time.

So I say, "Chocolate musn't be your favorite Ice Cream if you keep ordering Vanilla."

To which you reply, "I don't think much about chocolate, in fact since I've already eaten most of chocolates friends, Chocolate fudge, Chocolate ripple, and Chocolate chip, I'm not that worried about chocolate. Chocolate is hiding in some cave somewhere and Vanilla has WMD, and has been giving chocolate money for years. SO BITE ME I'm eating Vanilla - It's dangerous and has a bad case of Neoplotian Syndrome.

I am not lying when I said "Chocolate musn't be your favorite Ice Cream if you keep ordering Vanilla."

Good try. No. Your example is completely off the mark, sorry. In your example, "you/moore" has taken no position, which is unture. I don't think that is the point of Moore's movie. His point is not about "Bush number one concern is not Osama bin Laden". He actually blame Bush for not capturing bin Laden. Blaming Bush for not capturing "an innocent man"? Have you not heard of Moore's speech? He repeatly said, "Because George Bush has decide to attack Iraq which is a country of no threat to us, we missed the chance to capture Osama bin Laden." I believe Bush has always said capturing bin Laden or not, the war on terror will continue and that capturing him alone doesn't make us safe. In fact, that is the reason why he adovates nation rebuilding, region transformation, because the cause of terriost is not one person or a group of persons but it is rooted in the governments and culture in that region. If the cause of terriosm is simply Al Qaeda, then there is no reason for region transformation. For what? Don't you even remember Bush gave a reason for rebuilding Afghanistan -- even before the Afghan invasion occured? Did you remember what reasons he stated for transforming Afhan, or you have selective memory lost? It is naive to think global terrorism equals bin Laden. The Bush adminstration has said that bin Laden is a concern, but not the only concern. That is the correct thinking. Since the Bush has never claimed bin Laden is the only concern, and that the Bush adminstration has always claimed Saddam is a concern (even before 9/11). In fact, every president since the Gulf War has. Why else do you think we had an oil sanction on Saddam during the Clinton adminstration? For fun? No, because he was considered as a threat. Remember the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act? I am unsure how Bush was inconsistent. In fact, that is one more lie that Moore made.

Imagine this, in my exmaple Moore has taken different stand at different time, which is true as he is:

I am going to arrest your girlfriend and her dog. I believe that your girlfriend has stolen something of mine and she is a major concern, but I have in the pass raised concern regarding about her dog even before I suspect your girlfriend. Now, first, I raided your grilfriend apartment and she took off. Before and during this raid, you have openly defended your girlfriend's innocent and that it is wrong for me to raid her apartment. Now I realized your girlfriend is no way near by, I went after her dog (since I do know where the dog is). Now you starting screaming the facts that "If my girlfriend is your major concern, then you shouldn't have gone after her dog." and that "Because I went after the dog, I missed my chance capturing your girlfriend."

Yeah, that is first of all, twisitng facts. Second, insincere. Third, lying. What don't you get?

Moore think war can only be fought in one front. So I guess FDR must have made a huge mistake when he decided to allocate most of the war effort toward the European Theater and not the Pacific Theater. Afterall, wasn't Japan who bombed us, and not German? Do you know why FDR has always eyeing on German even before Pearl Harbor Attack? After Pearl Harbor incident, why then we concentrate our resource on to German, way before Japan was defeated. Didn't FDR said Japan is the one attacked us? Didn't he said Japan is the reason we went to the war?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!