Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 122
  1. #21  
    A few points made about the movie by Johathan Foreman from the New York Post:

    * Moore's favorite anti-administration interviewee is former National Security Council aide Richard Clarke. Yet the film never mentions that it was Clarke who gave the order to spirit the bin Laden family out of America immediately after 9/11. Moore makes much of this mystery; why didn't he ask Clarke about it ?

    * At one point of the film, he portrays GIs as moronic savages who work themselves up with music before setting out to kill. Later, he depicts them as proletarian victims of a cynical ruling class, who deserve sympathy and honor for their sacrifice.

    * The film's amusing (if bordering on racist) Saudi-bashing sequences rely for their effect on the audience having forgotten that President Bill Clinton was every bit as friendly with Prince Bandar (or "Bandar Bush," as Moore calls him) and the Saudi monarchy as his successor. In general, the movie is packed with points that Moore assumes his audience will never check, or are either lies or cleverly hedged half-lies:

    * Moore says that the Saudis have paid the Bush family $1.4 billion. But wait —the Bushes aren't billionaires. If you watch the film a second time you'll note Moore saying that they paid $1.4 billion to the Bush family and (added very quietly and quickly) its friends and associates.

    * Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998. Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan are looking at the idea now, but nothing has come of it so far, and in any case Unocal has nothing to do with it.

    * In a "congressmen with no kids at war" stunt, Moore claims that no one in Congress has a son or daughter fighting in America's armed services, then approaches several congressmen in the street and asks them to sign up and send their kids to Iraq. His claim would certainly surprise Sgt. Brooks Johnson of the 101st Airborne, the son of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.). And for that matter the active-duty sons of Sen. Joseph Biden and Attorney General John Ashcroft, among others.

    The most offensive sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s long two hours lasts only a few minutes. It's Moore's file-footage depiction of happy Iraq before the Americans began their supposedly pointless invasion. You see men sitting in cafes, kids flying kites, women shopping. Cut to bombs exploding at night.

    What Moore presumably doesn't know, or simply doesn't care about, is that the building you see being blown up is the Iraqi Ministry of Defense in Baghdad. Not many children flew kites there. It was in a part of the city that ordinary Iraqis weren't allowed to visit — on pain of death.

    And if Moore weren't a (left-wing) version of the fat, bigoted, ignorant Americans his European friends love to mock, he'd know that prewar Iraq was ruled by a regime that had forced a sixth of its population into fearful exile, that hanged dissidents (real dissidents, not people like Susan Sontag and Tim Robbins) from meathooks and tortured them with blowtorches, and filled thousands of mass graves with the bodies of its massacred citizens.

    Yes, children played, women shopped and men sat in cafes while that stuff went on — just as people did all those normal things in Somoza's Nicaragua, Duvalier's Haiti and for that matter Nazi Germany, and as they do just about everywhere, including in Iraq today.

    Moore has defended deliberate inaccuracies in his prior films by claiming that satirists don't have to tell the exact truth. Fair enough. But if you take the lies, half-lies and distortions out "Fahrenheit 9/11," there isn't much of anything left.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  2. #22  
    no, actually I meant egotistical
  3. #23  
  4. #24  
    Mr Heberman,

    Nicely put. I know you were quoting but nicely put just the same.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  5. #25  
    Anyone on here a fan of Bill Hicks (RIP)? He was far funnier than Michael Moore, who I think has tried to style himself on Bill. Watch some of his stand-up if you get a chance.
    Animo et Fide
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    This guy just want to be famous and will say or do anything to get it. Much of his material all the way back to Roger & Me has been proven to be false. But hey, go ahead and believe it. Don't think for yourself.
    Can you (or anybody else) give us examples of points which are factually wrong in Fahrenheit 9/11, or in previous movies if you can't show anything wrong in the present one? Please include references.
  7. #27  
    It appears to me that facts do not equal truth, and truth is in the eye of the beholder. While I lean liberal, and will see F911, I also listen to Rush and Hannity (though I'm finding it more and more difficult these days) and find them entertaining. Though I cringe when I hear Rush talking about brining his audience the truth and hear Hannity's tagline about the most comprehensive election coverage. In many cases, Moore, Rush, and Hannity all have and use the same facts, yet come to very different "truths."

    I wish there were a choice other than Bush or Kerry.
  8. #28  
    "It appears to me that facts do not equal truth, and truth is in the eye of the beholder"

    pbbryon, could you please stay on topic, your last post (Post #27) about the Wimbledon match last night has nothing to do with Micheal Moore.

    The problem with Michael Moore is that he purposely omits facts or creates new ones (among others research bowling for columbine, the title was based on the "fact" the kids when bowling before the shooting but turns out he made that up too.). Example:

    Moore claims Bush authorized bin Laden's family to fly out after 9/11 when all flights were grounded, because Bush is cozy with the Saudis.

    According to himself, Richard Clarke (who in the movie is used to support Michael Moores case), Clarke authorized the flight.
    http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx


    Another one is one heberman posted:
    Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998. Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan are looking at the idea now, but nothing has come of it so far, and in any case Unocal has nothing to do with it.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by pbryon
    I wish there were a choice other than Bush or Kerry.
    Hallelujah brother! I’m pretty in the center, and I have absolutely no confidence in Bush or Kerry. Our history has always been about great leaders arriving on the scene when we need them. Where is our Lincoln now in this troubled time? Crap…
    Doug
  10. #30  
    In his New York Post (now that is an objective newspaper!) article, Heberman quotes F911 as saying there is NO congressman's children enlisted in the military.

    Well if you see the movie, Moore clearly says there IS just one congressman's child enlisted in the military.

    I so not believe everything of what Moore says for sure, but Heberman is certainly blowing smoke here.

    As someone who did enlist in the military, working with people from the inner city who joined to get out of the ghetto, I am particularly sensitive to this issue.

    Certainly, there are people who serve their country bravely, and believe in the current war, also believed in Vietnam.

    But, I noticed long ago that there are many pro-war people with very little experience with what the meaning of war is, who have not served in the military (or did their best to serve as little as possible - GWB), and sort of feel like they can make others do their political will while they somehow are exempt from participating.

    This is what Moore is talking about in his movie. A theory about our underclass fighting the war of a cynical ruling class, is oversimplifying things, but it does deserve discussion.
  11. #31  
    I think both Bush and Moore balance each other very well. Bush lies to wage a phony war and Moore lies to expose Bush's lies.

    Both provide immense entertainment value.
    Both take the American public for a ride!
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by zackz
    I think both Bush and Moore balance each other very well. Bush lies to wage a phony war and Moore lies to expose Bush's lies.
    Please, not the "Bush lies" argument again. It's almost as bad as the "Bush didn't win Florida" blather. No one, no where, has shown a single "lie" by Bush. Funny how the same people who hysterically scream, "Bush lied, lied, lied!" have no problem with Michael Moore. ("It's ok if Moore lies, because he doesn't like Bush")
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  13. #33  
    "Bush lies to wage a phony war"

    Example?
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by ttrundle
    no, actually I meant egotistical
    Which has the same meaning as Egoistical.
    You don't stop laughing because you grow old. You grow old because you stop laughing.
    -Michael Pritchard
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Please, not the "Bush lies" argument again. It's almost as bad as the "Bush didn't win Florida" blather. No one, no where, has shown a single "lie" by Bush. Funny how the same people who hysterically scream, "Bush lied, lied, lied!" have no problem with Michael Moore. ("It's ok if Moore lies, because he doesn't like Bush")
    I gave you more credit than that, if you really think Bush never lied you are a lot more naive than I thought..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    I gave you more credit than that, if you really think Bush never lied you are a lot more naive than I thought..
    I still haven't seen anyone actually identify a single lie by Bush. Just repeating "he lied, everyone knows it" doesn't actually show any lie.

    It should be a simple thing right? But, strangely, no one is up to the challenge.

    ToolkiT? Zackz? Buhler? Anyone?

    By the way, did anyone see the news article where Putin admitted he told Bush about Saddam Hussein's planned terrorist attacks on US soil? "After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  17. #37  
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Frenzytom

    Not bad.


    Hey chick is that you in your avatar?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    I still haven't seen anyone actually identify a single lie by Bush. Just repeating "he lied, everyone knows it" doesn't actually show any lie.

    It should be a simple thing right? But, strangely, no one is up to the challenge.
    How about how he first claim the attack on Iraq is for WMD and when they cant be found he claims it was to free the Iraqi people...
    deceipt at least...
    I'm not an expert on Bush, but I'm sure he has broken many election promises (like any politician) so saying he didnt lie would be naieve..

    Also it is hard to pin lies on him since he gets rid of all evidence, or denies the public access to information (like in the hearings about 911 where he even needed backup to keep his story straight..)
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  20. #40  
    First thing to remember. The war was not about us finding WMDs but about Sadamm proving he no longer had or was pursuing WMDs. This war could of been prevented by Saddam. He had many chances to disarm and he didn't.

    The idea that Iraq had WMDs was not made up by Bush it was known and advocated by Clinton, Gore, Kerry, United Nations and other foreign intelligence agencies. One example, The United Nations, in 1999, determined Iraq had enough biological and chemical weapson to kill millions. Or just ask the Kurds.

    So to say Bush was deceptive about WMDs is deceptive itself. Bush was stating things known and believed to be true.

    What I believe would be naive would be accepting someones argument because they told me it would be naive not to. Perhaps its hard to pin lies on Bush because he doesn't have a patten of lying.


    Kerry,Gore,Clinton,Pelosis, Daschle, Albright et al. were saying the same thing about Iraq that Bush has been saying. The difference was that Bush took action.

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
    air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
    programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
    We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions