|
08 Jul 04 - 08:46 PM (#1221800) Subject: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Bill Hahn//\\ Looks like I have made the mistake of saying things like--Have you seen the film yet. At some tennis games and social events. Bad move. I am amazed at the virulent response by people=-=-=and---they have not even seen it. Upon trying to discuss, merely, the technical (editing) aspects it change nothing. Virulent antipathy. So---the point of the post. Watch where you ask about this film since you may alienate friends---I, for one, don't give a damn. I think the numbers and the interest speak for themselves re: Dubya and this documentary. Yes, it was over the top in some things---not many though. What I do not understand is the hatred by those have not even seen it. Some of the comments are too obscene to even repeat by some of the "blathering motormouths" I have, sadly,met. One woman==a teacher no less told me that her son wants to make a documentary in opposition---had she seen it (NO) is her son a film-maker (NO). Do they pre-judge (YES). Is the prodigy talented as a film-maker (WHO KNOWS) SInce he is in Freshman year at College and knows nothing about editing and film making I think I can answer the query. Bill Hahn |
|
08 Jul 04 - 08:48 PM (#1221801) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Bill Hahn//\\ My apologies. This should have been on the "below the line" topics. I still do not know how to do that. I need education. Bill Hahn |
|
08 Jul 04 - 09:00 PM (#1221805) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: SINSULL Poor Bill. Funny - I had exactly the same reaction in reverse when I said I would not go to see The Passion Of The Christ. Apparently, without that ticket stub no one is getting into heaven. And as you have so eloquently stated: I for one don't give a damn. The Democrats in Maine are holding a fund raising on Sunday AM. They have reserved the entire theater for a showing of Fahrenheit 911. I imagine there will be anti -film people protesting but who knows? I am going just to be sure a seat is filled. SINS |
|
08 Jul 04 - 09:09 PM (#1221811) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST No doubt Moore's film is biased; he has been open about that. I give him credit for that. I will watch it with an open mind, knowing that it is one man's perspective - one man whose stated purpose for making the film was to oust Bush from the Oval Office in '04. I hope he succeeds. |
|
08 Jul 04 - 09:17 PM (#1221814) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Ebbie It hasn't come to Juneau, Alaska, yet but is scheduled to arrive tomorrow night and be on for several weeks. We have only two commercial theaters and they are owned by the same family. A friend was in Whitehorse, YT, last week and saw it while she was there. She's going to see it again, with me. |
|
08 Jul 04 - 09:52 PM (#1221825) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Bill Hahn//\\ OPen minds are wonderful. Exactly correct---Moore said right up front what the film was intended to do. Is he accurate in his film--sure---up to a point. Does he get his--and I underline--HIS--message across. Sure. Only 2 parts of the film--to me---might be questionable. His narration at the 7 min. (I think it was 7) showing Bush with the kids in the FL school and the attack on WTC ongoing. Could be two interpretations there. Other than that I am amazed at some of the footage he acquired that needed no narration---Marine Recruiters in poor neighborhboods---soldiers pro and con re: Iraq---and, finally, his beautiful off camera narration at the end of the film. And, never forget the great shots of Dubya making his speech to a rich group ---his own words,. You have to see that. So--how do I move this to the below the line thread???? Bill Hahn |
|
08 Jul 04 - 11:09 PM (#1221859) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Jack the Sailor As a piece of art I think it was a great film. As propaganda, well Moore is the wrong man to make propaganda. Because of his reputation no one will see it who has not already made up their mind. Bill H. you can tell the teacher's son not to bother. If he wants to see the Anti Moore propaganda film tell him to watch any 100 minutes of Fox News channel. Yeah a lot of people are dissing the movie without having seen it. Just think of that as a good way of finding out who is a bigot. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 03:02 AM (#1221942) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd There is a filmmaker currently working on a film called--I shit you not--Michael Moore Hates America. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 03:50 AM (#1221958) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Ellenpoly Let's face it folks, a lot of people are emotionally invested in defending their beliefs. It really is much like religion-How many people do you know who are able to open their minds to new or contradictory ideas? You end up rattling their foundations, and most people (not all, thankfully) will despise those who say they are wrong and have been mistaken in their beliefs. This is even more intense when facts can be proven, such as in the Moore film, and several lawyers have poured over this to make sure of it. So what is left? Knee-jerk reaction. Hatred not based on anything but that someone is not WITH them, therefore must be against them. Moore is entitled to his opinions, and they are scattered through the film. But far more important are the indisputable facts. That's what is really sticking in the craw of those who are unable to open their minds to what has been happening right under their noses. How many people do you know who can say "I was wrong in believing in this Administration"? From the interviews of those people who are taking the chance to having their eyes opened by going to see this film...it looks like some CAN. But beware those who can't or won't. They will fight tooth and nail against you. ..xx..e |
|
09 Jul 04 - 06:36 AM (#1222058) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: The Fooles Troupe I think that is what is wrong with the institutionalised 2 party system (funny - it's not unlike 2 flavours of the one Big Brother Party!) - you get the Right View, and the Further Right view :-) In countries where more than 2 political parties (including minority parties) flourish, those who are closed minded get mainly ignored. Robin |
|
09 Jul 04 - 06:41 AM (#1222064) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: mooman I am certainly looking forward to seeing the film this weekend here in Belgium. Friends who have seen it have told me it is very good and I thought BFC was a good film. It got a round of applause here at the end in the cinema. Peace moo |
|
09 Jul 04 - 09:20 AM (#1222159) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Strick "Yeah a lot of people are dissing the movie without having seen it. Just think of that as a good way of finding out who is a bigot." What's equally interesting is the number of people who reject any review or critique of the film that isn't favorable without reading it. Several of these reviews I've seen aren't reflexive rejections of the movie; they're thoughtful analyses by people who've seen the film and thought about it. I'm surprised to see some significant people who've taken the time to review the film being written off with lines like "well, they've proven they're not liberal anymore" as if a critique of the film is to be valued only if it's by someone with the right (er, left?) credentials, someone who automatically loses those credentials if they are critial of the movie. Never mind the validity of the points being made. I understand that you can like or even love a movie that critics hate. I understand that it's a movie that mixes fact with Moore's peculiar view of the world that isn't always supported by facts and sometimes resembles propaganda more than art. A propa-docu-comedy? If the movie makes the pretense of being a serious discussion of events, why show such disrespect for someone who offers a serious discussion of its flaws, often without reading them? How is that different from rejecting the movie without seeing it? There's a moral high ground here? Who's the bigot? I see that the Paris newspaper Le Monde's review of the movie was pretty scathing, too, btw. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 09:21 AM (#1222161) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Jeri I used to listen to Limbaugh occasionally, just to see what the right wing extremists were saying. What I believed I found was a lot of ridicule and scorn and very few facts. The scorn made it feel to me like they just didn't have much else other than that. As an independent voter, I'll listen to anything that makes sense, and attempts to use people's feelings and provoke knee-jerk reactions just turned me off. I don't think Moore does that, although knee-jerk reactions will possibly result from the facts presented and the questions asked, by those who don't want to have reasons to think. (I have a feeling that Bush could pull a Saddam, have irritating people executed, and a few folks out there would say "But he's our President! I support him - he must have had his reasons!" I would love to hear the other side in an intelligent debate. I don't think the 'other side' will see the movie, and if they do, they won't talk about points Moore raised but "He's a weenie, he hates America, yada, yada." |
|
09 Jul 04 - 09:55 AM (#1222191) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST "I would love to hear the other side in an intelligent debate." You're on. They won't necessarily change your mind or make you like the movie any less, but they do discuss some of the ways Moore twists to make a point. Unfairenheit 9/11 - Christopher Hitchens More Distortions From Michael Moore Under the Hot Lights Sorry, I'm not going to subscribe to Le Monde to get their review, but there is this quote: "The daily newspaper Le Monde wrote: "To affirm...that it was crowned (in Cannes) for its cinemagraphic qualities is either proof of incompetence, a pure lie or a cynical joke." Le Monde said the film more closely resembles propaganda, and it carried a separate article to separate "truths" from "errors" in the film." |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:06 AM (#1222208) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Strick, I hope you weren't talking about my response to the Hitchens review in another thread. What I said could have been CONSTRUED to mean I thought the review of the film proved he wasn't liberal anymore. In fact I think he proved that long ago, and the review has nothing to do with that. In my response, I was parodying a line in which Hitchens dismissed Moore in a similarly disrespectful way. THIS is what I have objected to in reviews that try to show that Moore is "lying and distorting" They always lie and/or distort themselves in order to do it. Moore showed a montage of images to dramatize the fact that Bush has spent more time on vacation than any other President. "In one of those images, Tony Blair appears! Obviously, Bush cannot have been on vacation if he was meeting with a head of state, blah, blah, bluster, bluster!" cries Hitchens. But he does not and cannot dispute the FACT that Bush spends more time on vacation than any president in living memory. So who is the bigger distorter of the facts? Moore, who may have inserted one image in which Bush was not on vacation, or Hitchens, who claims that this somehow invalidates the point? |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:19 AM (#1222214) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST Nerd, I don't remember seeing you're post. I was responding to someone else I know. "'In one of those images, Tony Blair appears! Obviously, Bush cannot have been on vacation if he was meeting with a head of state, blah, blah, bluster, bluster!' cries Hitchens." I see your point, but it is true that since Eisenhower had Camp David built, it and the various other presidential second homes have been used for working vacations. It's not just Blair, it's Putin, Vicente Fox, members of the Cabinet, House and Senate including Ted Kennedy, a regular string of people. You often accomplish more when you're not tied to the White House. Can you at least see what Hitchens is trying to get at? With all those people coming and going and with the ranch having one of the world's most sophisticated communications and e-conferencing facilities, do you really thing a President could be off duty or out of touch (not cheap shots, now!)? Does one disputable point in his article make it completely invalid anymore than the criticism of Moore's film make it invalid? For what it's worth, down here Dubya has a repuation for being incredibly charming and persuasive one on one. I know it's hard to believe. It's in the more public settings he's clumsy. When you're at the ranch, watch out. You're on his native turf. How do you think he got Kennedy to co-sponsor that education bill? |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:21 AM (#1222218) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Here's a gem of an assertion from the "more distortions from Michael Moore" article. Defending Bush's close dealings with Osama's family, the authors point out: "...the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism..." Oh, really, boys? |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:24 AM (#1222222) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Geoff the Duck You think that Bush visiting Blair is NOT a holiday? Perhaps not a holiday - more like throwing your pet lap dog a stick to fetch, down at the park! Quack!! Geoff the Duck. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:30 AM (#1222231) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: MAG I saw it this past weekend. I would have liked Moore to put footage of Bush blasting "Washington Insiders" next to that damning footage of him bragging about getting jobs with oil companies based on his access to his father. Facts are stubborn things. Bush uses the appearance of stumbling to further his "Just Folks" image. He is a dangerous demagogue. It I end up on Poindexter's list for saying so, I will be in very good company. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:33 AM (#1222235) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Strick Sorry, need to get that cookie fixed. "...the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism..." Oh, really, boys? So everyone in that large, extended family is guity by association with Osama? There are no black sheep in your family? He's got, what 50 brothers and sisters according to the New Yorker? To quote PBS's Frontline: "The relationship between the bin Ladens and the Saudi royal family is quite exceptional in that it not simply one of business ties: it is also a relationship of trust, of friendship and of shared secrets. This is particularly the case with regard to the group's present-day leaders and the Soudairi clan." The rest of the family is in big with the Royal Family Osama wants to replace with a Islamic state. He wants to take away what made them rich and powerful. They all agree with him and are therefore linked to terrorism? And the articles rather question the use of the phrase "close dealings" with the Bin Laden family, don't they? What is this, guilt by secondary association? |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:36 AM (#1222240) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd GUEST, the problem with Hitchens' article is not so much its facts. In many cases he has no facts to speak of. In others he simply contradicts Moore, giving no better evidence than Moore does. In other cases he twists Moore's words and then attacks his own twisted version of what Moore "said." What put me off was his venal, vituperative tone which is to my ears MUCH more scathing and disrespectful than Moore's: 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. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. etc, etc. Hitchens has long thought that because he is an excellent writer he has license to launch vicious ad hominem attacks, usually against people on the political left. I grant that, to a thinking person, they are more eloquent and amusing than Rush Limbaugh's similar attacks, but they are not much more valuable. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:53 AM (#1222266) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Strick: No, I didn't say that everyone in the family is guilty by association. I just said it was patently absurd to say that the family was not linked to terrorism. The most notorious terrorist in the world is a member of the family. That is a link. It is a link that deserves close investigation, and it did not receive close investigation. This was clearly one of Moore's points in the movie. Secondly, the film presents evidence that Osama was NOT in fact completely estranged from the family, as the usual media echo-chamber tells us. He has had infrequent but friendly contact with several family members since becoming the most wanted terrorist in the world. Therefore there is good reason to suspect the family might know something useful. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:56 AM (#1222272) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Also, Strick, can you not see that you are distorting, just as you accuse others of doing? You begin your post by claiming I said something I never even implied, that everyone in the family was guilty by association. That's just what many of these film reviews do, set a straw man version of Moore and then knock it down. Can't you respond to what I DID say, rather than some made-up fantasy that no-one said? |
|
09 Jul 04 - 11:22 AM (#1222304) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Here's an example from "Under the Hot Lights" The movie claims that in the days after 9/11, when airspace was shut down, the White House approved special charter flights so that prominent Saudis—including members of the bin Laden family—could leave the country. [...] Not true, according to a recent report from the 9/11 panel. The report confirms that six chartered airplanes flew 142 mostly Saudi nationals out of the country, including one carrying members of the bin Laden family. But the flights didn't begin until Sept. 14—after airspace reopened. This is not what the film claimed. It claimed that they were on one of the first planes out AFTER airspace was reopened, just what Isikoff says above. Isikoff is also being disingenuous. By carefully wording the above distortion of what Moore said, he also ignores the fact that these Saudis were allowed special DOMESTIC charter flights while the rest of us were grounded, in order to assemble for these six flights out. So to sum up, Isikoff makes it sound as if there is a big difference between what actually happened and what he claims Moore said, when (1) the difference is smaller than he makes it out to be and (2) Moore didn't say it anyway. THIS is why these reactions frustrate me. It's not because I think every single statement by Moore is true. I don't. It's that these writers generally have to resort to the exact crimes they claim Moore commits--in order to even make the claim! |
|
09 Jul 04 - 11:26 AM (#1222316) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Strick "You begin your post by claiming I said something I never even implied..." No, I just questioned the obvious implication of what you wrote which as as blythe in its scope as the point you quoted. You know what they meant, too, right? They say part of the family that the Bush family has some connections with (after challenging the perported depth of those connects) has never been associated with terrorism. You blew that a little out of context to make your point? Their point is that it's questionable suggest that since one or more members of a large family are terrorist, anyone associating with the family in general is associating with terrorists. There's no strawman. That's clearly what they and others think Moore tried to do. Besides I'm not accusing anyone of distortions, only questioning certain people who rejected the reviews without reading them, exactly the way they claim others reject Moore's movie without seeing it. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 12:50 PM (#1222380) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd See, Strick, there you go again. They say part of the family that the Bush family has some connections with (after challenging the perported depth of those connects) has never been associated with terrorism. This is NOT what they say. They say that the family, which runs a big construction company, has no ties to terrorism. Actually, let's quote them: Leaving aside the fact that the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism, the movie—which relied heavily on Unger's book—fails to note the author's conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything. See? They say nothing about "that part of the family that the Bush family has some connections with." They say "the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms." And since Osama is the son of the founder of the construction firm in question, and ran a subsidiary himself until sometime after he went to Afghanistan, it's kind of hard to say he is not from that "part" of the family. So the family the Bushes are linked to is Osama's immediate family, which I think qualifies as a "link" to terrorism. In fact George HW Bush was in a Carlyle Group meeting with Osama's brother on September 11th. It would be hard to argue that Bush's father and Osama's brother are different "parts" of the family, distant from W and Osama. By the way, I did misread your original post. I didn't realize you were talking about people who reject the reviews without reading them. I am obviously not one of these :-) |
|
09 Jul 04 - 01:02 PM (#1222393) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Strick Splitting hairs mighty fine there, Nerd. Please show that the part of the family that is involved with this alleged connection is involved in terrorism. What's important is this: "...fails to note the author's conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything." The article and others point out Moore's deliberately putting unrelated, poorly detailed facts together to give an audience the impression they're related when he has no basis the connection. Suggesting the presumption of guilt by inuendo and association is a favorite tactic of Moore's. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 01:13 PM (#1222397) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Strick, I don't have to show anything beyond what I did show, which was that the authors of that rebuttal made a ludicrous statement. YOU were the one that invented all these "parts" that the family is supposedly broken into. The people I was rebutting did not mention any parts. What they DO mention is the construction company that bin Laden's father founded and that bin Laden himself worked for. That in itself constitutes a link. Are my father and my most recent employer NOT considered "linked" to me, by any reasonable standard? Jeez, you say I'M splitting hairs. By the way, Unger has come out as strongly disagreeing with Isikoff's opinions on the film, so their claim that his book supports their position is weak. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 02:15 PM (#1222439) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Here is Unger's response to Isikoff's point that in Unger's opinon the (the one YOU claim is "what is important"): 7) In the same article, Isikoff tries to pit me against Michael Moore by asserting that my book, unlike the movie, concludes that the role of James Bath, a Texas businessman who represented Saudis and was close to George W. Bush, was not terribly significant. Isikoff writes,"The movie—which relied heavily on Unger's book—fails to note the author's conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything." Isikoff is wrong again. It is true that no conclusive evidence has yet answered the specific question of whether or not bin Laden money actually went from the bin Ladens to Bath and then into George W. Bush's first oil company, Arbusto. But beyond that unresolved issue, the bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus is crucial to the birth of the Bush-Saudi relationship. Even if bin Laden money did not go into Arbusto, Bath introduced Salem bin Laden and his good friend Khalid bin Mahfouz to Texas. A host of contacts between them and the House of Bush ensued. Bin Mahfouz shared financial interests with James Baker. His associates bailed out Harken Energy, where George W. Bush made his first fortune. Money from both the bin Ladens and the bin Mahfouzes ended up in Carlyle. This relationship is what House of Bush is about. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 02:43 PM (#1222463) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos The problem with Hitchens, as Nerd points out, is that he exercises considerable glibness and talent in the service of extreme reality-distortion. His arguments are ad-hominem in the extreme, do not speak of or to facts, and are vicious in tone. It is a great shame that some one who can be articulate is doing so at such a far remove from simple truth-telling. A |
|
09 Jul 04 - 02:46 PM (#1222465) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Strick The problem with Moore is that he exercises considerable glibness and talent in the service of extreme reality-distortion. His arguments are ad-hominem in the extreme, do not speak of or to facts, and are vicious in tone. It is a great shame that some one who can be articulate is doing so at such a far remove from simple truth-telling. Yeah, that sounds about right. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 02:54 PM (#1222471) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd By the way, you can read Unger's point-by-point rebuttal of Isikoff's many diatribes against the film here |
|
09 Jul 04 - 03:11 PM (#1222477) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Well, Strick, Hitchens is far more eloquent than Moore will ever be. And, having seen the film AND read Hitchens' review, I happen to think that Hitchens is far more vicious in tone, although this is a value judgement. But where in the movie does Moore say anything vicious about Bush? But beyond that, I love it when people who disagree with me try to point out that "your argument is just as bad as my argument." It's like, as I said on the recent WMD thread, "I know you are, but what am I?" So, okay, you may think Moore lies and distorts. You make think he makes illogical statements ike ad hominem attacks, and you can rightly castigate him for that if you can provide evidence. But if you really think this is bad, then why would you use an accusation of Moore to defend someone else who DOES THE SAME? In other words, should we believe a review of the film that relies on lies and distortions to argue that Moore lies and distorts? Why do they need so many lies and distortions, by the way, to make this argument? Because, as the NY times has argued, Moore's facts check out. NY Times: After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career). |
|
09 Jul 04 - 03:20 PM (#1222482) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Larry K Michael Moore is a talented film maker who has created a new category of movies- "fictional documentaries". I loved Roger and Me for its entertainment qualities. I did not see Colunbine or Fahrenheit and have no intention of doing so. I have have read numerous review that disect both movies. I have also read Michael Moores response to the critisism. When pointed out that the parents of the Colunmbine kids made sattelites and not bombs, Moore responded that they may be making bombs in the future. Lame excuse for getting his facts wrong. You have every right in the world to defend Michael Moore. Howevery, you lose every shred of credibility when you defend Moore on the basis of facts. Moore has an agenda and plays very loose with facts. When Wesley Clark refused to distance himself from Moore, the american public rejected him. The same will be true for Kerry if he makes the same mistake. Moore is the poster child for the extreme left. As such, they will support his movie. In recent polls, liberals represent less than 20% of the country. (either 13% or 17%- I don't remember) Farenheit may do 100 million box office- not bad. Far less than Spider Man did in the first weekend. And far less than the 20 million people who listen to Limbaugh every day. I hope that every one of you goes out and touts Moore as the Democratic poster boy. Please tie yourself to Moore's coat tails. Kerry/Edwards (the kid/Moore perfect together. If your getting a photo op try to include Barbara Streisand and OJ in the picture. Other than France, I can't think of anyone America despises more. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 03:30 PM (#1222487) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Larry K, it is you who lose all credibility when you admit that you haven't seen the film. As I've pointed out, the reviews you've seen that "dissect" his films often lie not only about what happened, but also about what Moore said happened. You are in no position to judge at all unless you take the time to see the films. Oh, and Wes Clark was rejected by Democrats, not "the American Public." He was rejected because with or without Moore, he came across as an empty suit. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 03:48 PM (#1222505) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Big Al Whittle Sorry to depress Bush fans even further but Hitchens thought Ian Duncan Smith was a pretty good idea......... |
|
09 Jul 04 - 04:00 PM (#1222511) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos Moore has an agenda and plays very loose with facts He has had his statements of fact triplechecked. It is clear but unfortunate that you have not resorted tosimilar rigor in your own assertions, sir. A |
|
09 Jul 04 - 08:51 PM (#1222657) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: MAG C'mon members; you're down to talking with unnamed dust kicker-uppers here.Including that last post which pretends to be on your side but is just another flame. Save your breath for those seriously interested in an examination of the facts. With you, M.A. |
|
09 Jul 04 - 08:56 PM (#1222660) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Clint Keller "In recent polls, liberals represent less than 20% of the country. (either 13% or 17%- I don't remember)" Interesting. Would you please tell me how "liberal" was defined in these polls? clint |
|
09 Jul 04 - 09:57 PM (#1222680) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: DougR It'sa gonna make Mr. Moore a mighty rich man! He is gonna join the class of US citizens he abhors. Capitalists. Perhaps for another view of Mr. Moore and his film, you might want to check in on some of the websites that debunk his "facts" in the movie. You could start with: moorelies.com DougR |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:17 PM (#1222691) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Clint Keller --that shot of bush saying "This is an impressive crowd, the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base;" is that a lie? Didn't look faked to me. How about that one with the "Mission Accomplished" sign? And that one where the Black Caucus couldn't get a Senator to support them? And the one where the congresman explains that they don't read the bills they vote on? And the sequence where Moore asks members of congress to encourage their children to join the military? They all look pretty factual. And those are some of the ones that tell me something. You have to learn to separate fact from opinion for yourself. I don't agree with all Moore's opinions & insinuations, but I can't argue with those filmclips & what they tell me. clint |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:25 PM (#1222692) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Actually, moorelies.com is about lies they believe Moore told outside the film. But a lot of them, it seems to me, are misunderstandings. Like Pete Townshend said that Moore claimed he wouldn't let him use a song for political reasons, then changed his mind, but Moore didn't use it anyway. Townshend says he never changed his mind. But even Townshend admits this negotiation was between his people and Moore's people, not between him and Moore personally. So did Moore lie, was he misinformed by an employee who bungled a negotiation, or did he make a mistake? Or was Townshend lying himself to save face? I don't know, and neither do the folks at moorelies. It's just a random blog of people looking over every statement Moore has ever made and finding any one where he was mistaken, and saying "ooh! he lied about his pants size/hug with Tom Daschle/handshake with Jon Stewart!" Biggo Dealo, DougR! |
|
09 Jul 04 - 10:29 PM (#1222696) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos Interesting detail on the Newsweek rebuttal: "The same article also erroneously reports that the Saudi evacuation "flights didn't begin until Sept. 14—after airspace reopened." As House of Bush, House of Saud notes, however, the first flight actually took place a day earlier, on September 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place. Isikoff knew this. I even gave him the names of two men who were on that flight-- Dan Grossi and Manuel Perez-- and told him how to get in touch with them. Earlier, Jean Heller, a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, took the time to follow up on my reporting(see article below). She called Grossi, and in her subsequent article wrote, "Grossi did say that Unger's account of his participation in the flight is accurate." Rather than try to refute or corroborate my reporting, however, Isikoff omitted it entirely. The facts interfered with his argument. It is worth noting that Jean Heller was also able to obtain verification of the September 13 flight from other sources as well. Heller reports that the flight from Tampa, Florida to Lexington, Kentucky, has finally been corroborated by authorities at Tampa International Airport--even though the White House, the FAA and the FBI repeatedly denied that any such flights took place." The above is by the author of House of Saud, House of Bush". A |
|
10 Jul 04 - 11:20 AM (#1222884) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Yes, Amos, and he also points out that the three other private planes that tried to violate the sept. 13th no-fly were forced down, so the Saudi one had obviously been discussed and cleared at the highest levels. |
|
10 Jul 04 - 03:05 PM (#1222957) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Joe Offer
I think the world could use more pragmatists and fewer ideologues. -Joe Offer- |
|
10 Jul 04 - 03:36 PM (#1222967) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Ed. I think the world could use more pragmatists and fewer ideologues You're a wise man, Joe. |
|
10 Jul 04 - 03:57 PM (#1222976) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Uncle_DaveO GUEST Larry K said, in part: Moore has an agenda and plays very loose with facts. That's not one statement, it's two. Yes, assuredly Moore has an agenda, and he announces it frankly. You or anyone else is quite entitled to dislike or disagree with the agenda. As to facts, Moore is extremely careful with the facts he presents. He has a fairly large fact-checker section in his organization. He acknowledges that anyone can argue with his selection and interpretation of the facts, which are his own, but the facts he presents are very well documented indeed. Dave Oesterreich |
|
10 Jul 04 - 04:46 PM (#1222992) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Don Firth One a recent 60 Minutes, Michael Moore made a pretty telling remark. They showed a clip from Bowling for Columbine, in which Moore asked Charlton Heston (head of the NRA) why it is that even though people in other countries own lots of guns, there are more murders per person and per gun in United States. Heston responded that that's because there is more "ethnic diversity" in the United States. The interviewer told Moore that many people say of him that he tries to embarrass people on camera. Moore responded that he didn't tell Heston to say what he said. "I put people on camera with their consent and they embarrass themselves!" On that clip of Bush in the classroom on 9/11/2001, when he was told about the attack on the World Trade Center, no one (Moore wasn't there when that clip was filmed) directed Bush to look scared, bewildered, shifty-eyed, and completely at a loss as to what to do. He did that all by himself. Don Firth |
|
10 Jul 04 - 05:12 PM (#1222998) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos the class of US citizens he abhors. Capitalists. Well he is joining the class of successful artists, or p'raps "very" successful artists. But I doubt he will become any more of a capitalist than he was before. Besides, I think you wil,l find that if he hates anything it is not capitalists per se but oppressive people, whether high or low. There is no beauty in parasitism, no matter who executes it. A |
|
10 Jul 04 - 05:25 PM (#1223004) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Clint Keller I wasn't doubting the statistics on liberals; I was just wondering what the criteria were. Curiosity, truly. If they asked about conservatives in the same poll I'd like to see how they define them too. Or whatever. Godless hippie freaks? Fascists? Defining your terms is important. I don't know how I'd define "liberal" or "conservative" as nouns; & I try to avoid using them that way. clint |
|
10 Jul 04 - 05:58 PM (#1223017) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: DougR Right, Amos, Moore is a paragan of virtue (and also a mighty rich man). Nerd: yes, the flights were approved at the highest level of authority: Bush basher, Richard Clarke. DougR |
|
10 Jul 04 - 06:36 PM (#1223038) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos C'mon Doug. Don't be childish. I never said that, I don't think it, and if he is rich it wasn't based on favors from Washington, but on effective film production and sales. But I do have to acknowledge that the man has balls to stand up and make himself White House Enemy number one, for a while. I am glad he's still alive. It was awful hard to hear any clear thinking at all before Mister Moore stepped up and balanced the speaker circuits a little. A |
|
10 Jul 04 - 06:49 PM (#1223046) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd DougR, yes, it was Clarke. But recall that Clarke was a high-ranking member of the Bush administration at the time, not a "Bush-basher." He ultimately left precisely because he could not stomach decisions like these. Bush fans amuse me, in that on the one hand they like to paint a picture of Bush as "in control" during the crisis, but then blame every single decision on somebody else. It was the CIA/FBI/Pentagon/Clarke that screwed up. All Bush did was do what the CIA/FBI/Pentagon/Clarke told him! Can't blame a man for that! Why point out that Moore makes money, DougR? As a Bush supporter you obviously don't object to wealth, so what point are you making? I don't quite get it. |
|
10 Jul 04 - 06:50 PM (#1223047) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Bill D wouldn't it be 'interesting' if Rush Limbaugh made documentaries? The world can stand, and needs all points of view, not just right wing shouting. (Remember what Pete Seeger said when asked about the song "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy"? ....(paraphrased) "I didn't name anyone...I'm just a shoemaker. I go around the world making shoes...and if the shoe fits...." |
|
10 Jul 04 - 07:34 PM (#1223059) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Bill Hahn//\\ I love the Pete Seeger line---and, sadly, the song fits (as do many of Phil Ochs' pieces) todays tragic situation. In fact I played it on my program recently for just that reason. Though we have not a big fool today---sizewise anyway,. What I really wanted to post about was that aside from all the other books that have come out about Bush, Iraq, etc; I interviewed the author of The Bushes---History of a Dynasty. This is a really interesting and supposedly "neutral" book. My take---and I did get the author to sort of lean that way---was the W is not the "brightest bulb in the drawer" and, unlike his father, has less leadership and control quality. A reason why CHeney is where he is today---and the old Sr. Bush crowd. Given the rest of this truly interesting history of the family going back to very early days you come to realize that they feel a sense of ownership of this nation. They accumulate the wealth and power and all others are relegated to keeping the structure in place. One does have to admit, however, the intellect of senior is light years ahead of Jr. He, too, at least, served the nation in combat---as did Kerry. As did JFK, as did LaGuardia, as did Grant, and of course we cannot forget dear old Geo. W of the wooden teeth. Jr., well, we know of him do we not. Let me relate a brief anecdote from the book and interview that might put Bush/Clinton into persepective. The author claims that W so honors the office of Pres. that he puts on a suit and tie when entering the oval office---even at midnight. Clinton, he despises, for dishonoring the office ( as did JFK, FDR, Jackson,etc---in that sense). In Moore's film there is a shot of the younger W (while Sr. was Pres.) sitting like a hot shot with boots on and putting them on the Oval Office desk while talking with dear old dad. So---hyprocisy, too, runs rampant within the Bush persona. I gues he should be excused because it was before he found----what the hell ever it was he found. Who was it that said---and I quote: " Should we be proud because he stopped being a falling down drunk and finding God?" Bill Hahn |
|
11 Jul 04 - 01:50 PM (#1223364) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: kendall Doug, Rush got rich spouting lies and half truths so why not Moore stretching the truth a bit? I just saw the film, and although I didn't really learn anything, it reaffirms my disgust for that whole crooked lying gang. If some right wing asshole ever tells me to my face that I hate America he will be in for one hell of a surprise! I LOVE AMERICA...I DETEST GEORGE BUSH. |
|
11 Jul 04 - 02:49 PM (#1223380) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: DougR Kendall: It is not I, or you, that hate America. It's Michael Moore. I'm sure you are aware of his interview with (I believe)the Times or Guardian in London where he is quoted as stating that Americans are the dumbest people in the world. That America deserves to be disliked, etc. Nerd: I don't mind if MM earns a billion dollars or more from his films. More power to him I say! It just seems so out of character to me, though, to have the flaming liberals who love to hate wealthy people, and particularly big rich corporations, idolize one of them. DougR |
|
11 Jul 04 - 07:13 PM (#1223470) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Bill Hahn//\\ Nothing wrong with making a bundle. The question is how did you accumulate it? Corporate shenanigans, selling out your own people for oil, tax evasion, racketeering? Or---by making films in what you perceive to be truth and people buy your tickets, being an honest corporate magnate who cares about his/her employees, or some such nefarious ilk? Not really a tough question to answer and also know to which people I am referring. Bill Hahn |
|
11 Jul 04 - 07:39 PM (#1223480) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Don Firth Doug, I don't think Michael Moore hates America. He could easily go and live on the French Riviera (and let his mother turn his picture to the wall) if he chose to. What he hates (if he hates anything at all) is what the Bush administration is doing to the country. Apparently it has never occurred to you that one can love one's country, but dislike its rulers and their policies, both foreign and domestic. And as to whether or not Americans are the dumbest people in the world, it's possible to make a pretty strong case by pointing out that only about half of the registered voters can be bothered to get up off their flabby fannies and go out and vote, and half of those who did voted for someone as obviously unqualified as George W. Bush. And I think you'll find that most people in the world don't hate Americans. In fact, many like and admire Americans (this from people I know who travel a lot). They do intensly dislike aspects of American foreign policy and the way America tries to exploit and bully the rest of the world. And that is directly traceable to America's government and the behavior of American corporations that operate in foreign countries. It doesn't have to be this way. In fact, the world--and America--would be a lot happier and better off if we learned to live in cooperation with the rest of the world instead of constantly playing the schoolyard bully. Don Firth |
|
11 Jul 04 - 07:56 PM (#1223490) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: kendall Doug, what you said shows no evidence that MM hates America. I know a few conservatives personally and you all have the same blind spot. You equate disagreement with Bush with hate for America. I love America, I hate what the Bush gang is doing to her. What is so hard to understand? Why are you so unable to see that this incompetent lying phony coward has feet of clay? |
|
11 Jul 04 - 08:15 PM (#1223499) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Bill Hahn//\\ I re-iterate---listen to Moore's closing statement. A great follow-up to Orwell's great perception in 1984. Unfortunately, perhaps I am a pessimist, I think that we have gone down that road and we cannot return. Or, better yet, the world has gone down that road---Genocide and hatred seems to reign all over---even more than in the dark years of the 1940s. Humanity, as always, has to try to change this suicidal course. The Bushies surely won't----too much at personal stake. We go back to oil and involvement for their interests. Not that of humanity. Just think Sudan, Rwanda, etc; Lip service. Our people die for the causes espoused by the people that Moore speaks of. Now we are back to Orwell and Big Brother. Bill Hahn |
|
11 Jul 04 - 09:48 PM (#1223535) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: SINSULL I saw it today - Bush came off pretty badly, an ineffectual dolt who rode his Daddy's coattails to office. He doesn't help himself with that "deer in the headlights" panic that crosses his face at odd moments. That contrasted with the proud and grief-stricken parents who live what he preaches - well... But it was no worse than what I expected. Moore doesn't even try to pretend that he is being objective. And none of the information presented was shockingly new to me. I was once again outraged, however, at the disgrace of the 2000 voting scandal and "election". Damn! |
|
11 Jul 04 - 10:15 PM (#1223543) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Little Hawk To hate present-day American government policy IS to love America, as far as I'm concerned. And when Michael Moore said Americans were "dumb", I suspect he meant misinformed...which many Americans are. |
|
11 Jul 04 - 10:47 PM (#1223551) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,TIA DougR, when you use the phrase "the flaming liberals who love to hate wealthy people" you reveal that you really dont' do your own thinking. Instead, you are jousting a straw man created by your Pope Rush. |
|
12 Jul 04 - 12:39 AM (#1223593) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd DougR, There are very few liberals who "hate wealthy people." What liberals tend to hate is corporate interests that act as though the good of wealthy people is more important than the good of non-wealthy people. Particularly if a person becomes wealthy through hard work and creativity, and uses that wealth in a responsible way, few liberals will have a problem with that. My father is both fairly wealthy AND a liberal. He supports a more progressive tax structure even though he would have to pay more taxes. He thinks it would be worth in order to transfer the "tax relief" to the people for whom the "tax burden" is truly burdensome. If I ever become wealthy (I have siblings, so inheritance won't do it, alas!) it will not change my politics. I never have hated the wealthy. I just dislike the selfish. |
|
12 Jul 04 - 03:21 AM (#1223635) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Teribus "On that clip of Bush in the classroom on 9/11/2001, when he was told about the attack on the World Trade Center, no one (Moore wasn't there when that clip was filmed) directed Bush to look scared, bewildered, shifty-eyed, and completely at a loss as to what to do. He did that all by himself." - Don Firth's opinions. Interesting Don, what were your immediate reactions to those events Don? I can clearly remember mine - completely shocked and horrified. My initial thoughts were that it was the result of some ghastly technical malfunction, particularly when the second plane struck, I thought that something has gone wrong with the automatic landing system at NY, and that the pilots realised it too late to deselect automatic landing and take evasive action. |
|
12 Jul 04 - 10:56 AM (#1223884) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Oh, come on, Teribus! You thought the automatic landing system somehow misdirected two different planes so each one would strike a different tower of the world trade center from a different side? That would have been a preposterous coincidence. And you believed that after it had happened once, a second pilot would not have been alert enough to notice it was happening again? No, get real. When the second plane struck it became clear to me that this was an attack. Secondly, these planes were not landing at NY. They were flights from Boston to LA that had disappeared from radar screens for forty-five minutes only to appear again by crashing into the WTC. They were not utilizing the automatic landing system. Both had registered suspicious microphone activity, both had cut themselves off from contact with air traffic control. As a cilvilian, you did not know these things yet. As President, Bush would have been told. It was crystal-clear to the government at that time that these were hijacked planes. |
|
12 Jul 04 - 11:28 AM (#1223906) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: curmudgeon For those who wish to verify Moore's veracity, here's a link to the factuality page at his website -- Tom |
|
12 Jul 04 - 11:30 AM (#1223907) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Metchosin As Bush wasn't watching the events unfold on TV, maybe Teribus thought Bush's informer had leaned over to tell him that there had been a technical malfunction with the automatic landing system of two planes, resulting in them accidentally hitting the trade centre. LOL My initial reaction after watching them was, "Oh god! please let calmer heads prevail, there's going to be hell to pay in the world for this!" Wasn't far off the mark, either. |
|
12 Jul 04 - 12:23 PM (#1223946) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Teribus No, you come on, Nerd: Point 1. As the BBC switched to live coverage supplied by US networks that morning, and that didn't happen until AFTER the first plane struck. We here in the UK had no way of knowing what side of the building had been struck. But as the fire spread we did watch the second plane strike. Point 2. CNN live coverage AFTER the first plane struck did not identify the aircraft, so there was no information regarding what their flight numbers were and what the destinations of the aircraft were. No mention at the time the second aircraft struck regarding, flights that had disappeared from radar screens, no mention of suspicious microphone activity, or the fact that they were not in contact with air traffic control. There was at that time no mention of hijacked aircraft, not on CNN, not on BBC. Are you saying that when the second plane struck it was clear to you that it was an attack? Maybe someone should have a word with you about that. Or are you just looking at it with 20 x 20 hindsight, even after the second plane struck there was no mention of it being a terrorist attack - that all came later. "As a cilvilian, you did not know these things yet." But you say it was clear to you? "As President, Bush would have been told." Told what? First that an aircraft had crashed into one of the WTC Towers. It was not until after the second aircraft struck that any other interpretation was being put on things and that was not broadcast by the media. "It was crystal-clear to the government at that time that these were hijacked planes." What all of the members of the government? or just some of its members? or just those people immediately involved with handling the situation? |
|
12 Jul 04 - 12:38 PM (#1223957) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Teribus No, Metchosin, in my post I described what MY reaction was to what I was watching, and asked Don what his initial reaction was. Interestingly enough, like Nerd, your initial reaction, as described by yourself, as you saw the second aircraft strike was, "Oh god! please let calmer heads prevail, there's going to be hell to pay in the world for this!" - Now at 9.30 that morning what grounds did you have for thinking that? |
|
12 Jul 04 - 01:26 PM (#1223985) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Jeri One plane hitting a building could have been an accident. When the second one struck, it was pretty clear to me it was intentional. Roughly 36 hours before the attacks, I'd remarked to someone "I just hope Bush doesn't get us into a war." As I watched the horrors play out on September 11th, I saw the possibility that Bush would use this as an excuse to start a war. I didn't think it was likely, though. I didn't think the citizens of the U.S. or the rest of the world would stand for it. The threads start here: World Trade Center-Unreal Disaster And Big Mick, on 11 Sep '01 at 10:49, wrote: "Today we are forced down a path that will visit enough tragedy on this world that will make the one we are witnessing seem as only an opening gambit...........I am afraid, Anna my dear friend, because I have seen this before.............and I know what is coming.........and I am crying at the thought of it, and for those already dead................fucking insanity........." |
|
12 Jul 04 - 01:38 PM (#1223996) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Metchosin they've been my next door neighbour for close to sixty years, would you believe, just a guess..... |
|
12 Jul 04 - 09:48 PM (#1224243) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Teribus, This is not one of your smarter arguments. In fact, you're one of the few people I know who could argue that because I was right about something and you were wrong, that proves you are smarter than me. Yes, I knew it was a terrorist attack. I was right. You were still thinking "humm, maybe the automatic landing system is out of whack." You were wrong. I'd say that in this case, makes MY ability to see the truth of the situation stronger than yours, not the other way around. Are you saying that when the second plane struck it was clear to you that it was an attack? Maybe someone should have a word with you about that. Or are you just looking at it with 20 x 20 hindsight, even after the second plane struck there was no mention of it being a terrorist attack - that all came later. All I can say is I was here in the US, you were not. Even after the FIRST plane hit, people on the street, on the bus, and in my office were saying, "my god, a plane just hit the World Trade Center! I bet it's a terrorist attack." After the second plane hit, EVERYONE was saying it. Just because they weren't going there on CNN, doesn't mean it wasn't the scuttlebutt all over the US. Look, the WTC was known to be a target for international terrorists. Our embassies had been bombed, our warships had been bombed. The WTC itself had been bombed (at a time when I worked at one chase plaza, about a block away). And the alternate explanation YOU describe--a technical glitch--is ludicrous. "As a cilvilian, you did not know these things yet." But you say it was clear to you? No, these other details about the flight, which made it even more clear, were not known to me. I just knew it was a terrorist attack because that was the most logical conclusion to come to. But these other details WERE known to Bush. CNN live coverage AFTER the first plane struck did not identify the aircraft, so there was no information regarding what their flight numbers were and what the destinations of the aircraft were. No mention at the time the second aircraft struck regarding, flights that had disappeared from radar screens, no mention of suspicious microphone activity, or the fact that they were not in contact with air traffic control. There was at that time no mention of hijacked aircraft, not on CNN, not on BBC. "As President, Bush would have been told." Told what? First that an aircraft had crashed into one of the WTC Towers. It was not until after the second aircraft struck that any other interpretation was being put on things and that was not broadcast by the media. Good God, listen to you! The minute that first plane hit, air traffic control was determining what plane it was and where it had come from. ATC already knew about an LA bound jumbo jet being miles off its flight plan, about its cutting off contact, about its suspicious mic activity, etc, etc. That stuff was known to them as it happened. Once the crash occurred, it would take about two seconds to connect those dots. They CERTAINLY would know it wasn't a plane on the auto landing system, since those planes would all be still chattering away with them. So they knew what was happening at air traffic. Now, do you think they report this shit straight to CNN and the BBC before the law enforcement or intelligence communities? If you love news so much, here's some: Bush has sources of information you don't have! He has intelligence people precisely so he can learn these things BEFORE you find out about them on the TV News. And since the air traffic folks already knew all of this when the first plane struck, it's ridiculous to assume just because Teribus doesn't know something that Bush's intelligence people don't know it. |
|
12 Jul 04 - 10:36 PM (#1224261) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Teribus, just look at the link Jeri provides. It will show that US based 'catters saw terrorism as the most likely scenario from the outset. And indeed, Bush had announced that it was likely a terrorist attack by 9:30, after he finished his school photo-op. Metchosin's reaction was a natural one. |
|
13 Jul 04 - 12:34 AM (#1224324) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: LadyJean Bush sitting with those children, looking the way he did, left an impression. It's entertaining to listen to his supporters try to defend him. HE SAT THERE LIKE A LUMP! Can you imagine Lincoln doing that when he got the news of Fort Sumpter, or Roosevelt when he learned about Pearl Harbor. The fact that we know almost nothing about what Bush did on 9/11, except make a very stupid speech, has always left me wondering. Did he spend that day worshipping the porcelain god? The other scene that made an impression was when Lila Lipscombe was standing in front of the White House. The woman in the red coat, who belittled her loss, please tell me where I can find her, so I can slap her silly. I know a lot of people like this woman. Her children go to college using funds that were meant for Lila Lipscombe's kids. They drive there in S.U.Vs. She treats store clerks, waitresses, and of course her cleaning woman, as if they were automatons, specially created to serve her. She sees the luxuries she enjoys as rights, which she has earned. If the woman who made her red coat earned 50cents for making it, and the clerk who sold it to her was paid $7.00 to stand and wait while she decided to buy it, it's because they were lazy, and undeserving. She, who, if she works, got her job through friends or family, believes herself to be more deserving, more worthy than the rest of the world, with the exception, of course of her precious offspring, and, perhaps, her husband. She's probably still angry at Mrs. Lipscombe for making her look like a bitch. She's probably made a bunch of nasty remarks about Mrs. Lipscombe's weight, her clothes, and her family. I suspect she's used the word trailor trash. Please tell me where I can find this woman, so I can tell her that she's trash. |
|
13 Jul 04 - 01:47 AM (#1224345) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Teribus What a pity you weren't working for CIA, FBI, or NSA at the time Nerd - you could have prevented it all. By all accounts what the President was told that morning was that an aircraft had crashed into one of the WTC Towers, simply that, nothing more - his immediate reaction to that news was that it must have been an accident. It was only after the second incident that he was informed that the country was under attack. |
|
13 Jul 04 - 04:00 AM (#1224376) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Metchosin Guest Teribus, what a ridiculous comment, "comprehension" and "control" are not synonymous. No matter how you care to interpret Bush's response, if he could only initially "comprehend" the "incident" as an "accident" and that's was the only scenario he could come up with, in his little pea brain, it's understanable to me that many, quite rightly, consider him a very dim bulb indeed. This is a reasonable level of "comprehension" for a world leader? |
|
13 Jul 04 - 08:01 AM (#1224476) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Teribus Yes Nerd I did indeed check Jeri's link, with the following results, in chronological order: Catspaw49 - 09:06 - AFTER second plane hits he ASKS .....Terrorists? Alice - 09:11 - Only comments on the event, states nothing with regard to possible cause. The one and only Dai - 09:18 - provides a reference to a link in which it states: "Terrorist is SUSPECTED with second plane crash APPEARING to dive deliberately into the Tower. There is a report one of the planes had been hijacked." Catspaw49 - 09:25 - Sure is already Beginning to look like Terrorist attacks. Bit different to what you contend - but both you and Metchosin KNEW it was a terrorist attack when the first plane hit. Did either of you call it in - you had at least 18 minutes start on the rest of the population. |
|
13 Jul 04 - 10:52 AM (#1224604) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Teribus, don't be an ass. We all thought it was a terrorist attack and were right. You rather ridiculously thought it was a technical malfunction and were wrong. I can understand your feeling foolish about this but don't try to make US the dupes. By the way, Dai's link contradicts you, that even after the second plane hit no-one was mentioning hijacked aircraft in the news (you claimed this in point 2 at 12 Jul 04 - 12:23 PM). If it was up on the web already at 9:18, you can be sure the person writing it was working on it as soon as the second plane hit. Bit different to what you contend - but both you and Metchosin KNEW it was a terrorist attack when the first plane hit. Did either of you call it in - you had at least 18 minutes start on the rest of the population. My point is we didn't. Everybody was saying it was probably terrorists on the street and on the bus on my way to work that morning, BEFORE the second plane hit. Once the second plane hit, most people were pretty sure. I repeat, I was here and you were not. You just don't know what you're talking about. I also repeat, we became sure WHEN the second plane hit, not before. Let's revisit that. Your claim is both you and Metchosin KNEW it was a terrorist attack when the first plane hit. Try reading our posts next time. Metchosin said My initial reaction after watching them was, "Oh god! please let calmer heads prevail, there's going to be hell to pay in the world for this!" Wasn't far off the mark, either. Didja see that, T-Bird? After watching THEM. So he was talking about after the SECOND plane, not the first. I said When the second plane struck it became clear to me that this was an attack. See? I too was talking about the SECOND plane. You can bluster and blather all you want, but don't try to bullshit us about we ourselves said! Now on to your claim re: the film By all accounts what the President was told that morning was that an aircraft had crashed into one of the WTC Towers, simply that, nothing more - his immediate reaction to that news was that it must have been an accident. It was only after the second incident that he was informed that the country was under attack. Only problem with this is you've misunderstood what was in the film. Bush was informed about the first plane BEFORE he went into the classroom. What we saw on film WAS Bush being informed that the second plane had hit. In your words above, "he was informed that the country was under attack." But he went through about twenty minutes of photo-op, seven of them reading My Pet Goat, before he did anything. That was kind of Moore's point all along. Really, Teribus, it's tedious arguing about a film with someone who doesn't bother to see it and doesn't bother to read our previous posts and thus doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. |
|
13 Jul 04 - 11:11 AM (#1224618) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Wolfgang just look at the link Jeri provides. It will show that US based 'catters saw terrorism as the most likely scenario from the outset. (Nerd) The thread had been started after the second plane hit and not before. Nerd's expression 'from the outset' must be read with a grain of salt, for it can easily be read as misleading. Wolfgang |
|
13 Jul 04 - 11:14 AM (#1224621) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: WFDU - Ron Olesko You are all missing the point with Bush's reaction, especially Terribus. Of course people were confused. Personally, when the first plane hit, I thought it was an accident. Here in the NYC area the reports were mixed, some saying it was a small commuter plane. I think most of realized that something bigger was happening when the second plane hit. The point is, you and I can be confused. It is not our job to comprehend. The president is a different story. Based on the memo he received a month earlier, and based on the reports that the air traffic controls HAD ALREADY RECEIVED about planes being hijacked, Bush should have had a clue. Excuses to Bushes reaction have included confusion, lack of comprehension, cell phones that did not work, not wanting to scare the kids, among others. The FACT is that the leader of the United States MUST be better informed AND prepared to take action. Bush clearly is not that person. If it was his support staff that failed, that does not make it better. We deserve a president that can handle such a crisis. Bush failed. |
|
13 Jul 04 - 11:44 AM (#1224635) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Jim Dixon You might enjoy The Onion's take on this: "Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has broken box-office records, but some Bush supporters say it's flawed. What is the basis of their objections?" Click here for 'Infographic'. |
|
13 Jul 04 - 02:47 PM (#1224755) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos Bill: Tribal-think works that way. It is not the instance of the knwoedgeable indivgidual reaching a considered conclusion, but of the tribal recruit reciting the mantras fo the tribe. Thought of the group is the "right"htought, anything else is an aberration. Given this premise, evidence is not required. A |
|
13 Jul 04 - 02:50 PM (#1224758) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: beardedbruce Amos, Yes, very true. I have noticed it whenever I have conversation with SRS or Bobert. SOmetimes the rest of you, as well. |
|
13 Jul 04 - 02:59 PM (#1224763) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I was speaking about the inarticulate impulse Bill H describes to slam the movie without having seen it, and allow no discourse based on facts or even the fair exchange of opinions. He was describing his amazement at the virulence he observed in these responses. As far as I know of Bobert and SRS,either one of them will be more than happy to discuss any set of facts you can come up with. A |
|
13 Jul 04 - 03:14 PM (#1224775) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: beardedbruce Not quite. Any facts I bring up have to come from a properly "reliable" source, or SRS will not even deign to read them. My experience with them has been that they "allow no discourse based on facts or even the fair exchange of opinions." I was told by SRS that I had to concede the points she wanted to make prior to her even discussing what evidence she might have had. In addition, they have made personal attacks upon me. If you want ena example of virulence, just look at the postings about me that SRS has made. They seem only interested in asserting that their opinions are the only acceptable truth, and no-one is entitled to have any opinions that conflict with what they want to be. I do not claim that neocons are any different- but it seems to me that a number of the liberals here have demonstrated the worst attributes of those that they are criticizing. I thought that, just as the US is held to a higher standard, there would be at least the immage that the left was in some way above the tactics that they have utilized. |
|
13 Jul 04 - 08:16 PM (#1225006) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Hi Wolfgang, I was not being misleading. My point is as I made it in the last post above. Once the second plane hit, most Americans were intuitive enough to believe that it was a terrorist attack. Even after only one plane hit, it was being discussed as a probable explanation. It was Teribus who invented the fantasy that I or Metchosin claimed we knew after the first plane hit. Wolfgang, with respect I don't think YOU were here that morning either. I was on my way to work when the first plane hit, and believe me, terrorists were being discussed on the bus! It's a simple fact: most americans thought terrorists Might Be or Were responsible (depending on their inclinations) after the first plane hit, and most people were pretty sure it was terrorists after the second plane hit. People thousands of miles away keep saying it wasn't so, but you guys weren't here. All I can tell you is what was going on on the 34 in West Philly, and on the streets of Camden, NJ. We suspected after the first plane hit, and knew after the second plane hit. One thing that was different: reports reached me after the first plane was known to be a jumbo jet, so there was not the initial confusion Ron Olesko describes. I heard it from a guy on the bus who was listening to the news on a walkman. I may have gotten the news ten minutes later than those very first reports. But this makes no difference. By the time Bush was informed about the second plane, which we can all see in the Moore film, Bush in Teribus's own words "was informed that the country was under attack." Teribus was trying to argue that Bush didn't know the country was under attack at the time of Moore's footage because that was only the first plane. He was wrong. It was the second plane. So by Teribus's own admission Bush DID find out, in that footage, that we were under attack, and THAT's when he proceeded to do NOTHING. All the rest of this about who knew what when is a smokescreen Teribus set up to distract us from the question: why did bush delay and hedge and look shifty for so long before doing anything? |
|
13 Jul 04 - 08:27 PM (#1225012) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff He must have known that the genie was out of the bottle...bush probably pissed himself. Peter |
|
13 Jul 04 - 09:15 PM (#1225032) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,TIA BeardedBruce - with all due respect, in this, and numerous other threads, I believe you have been repeatedly distorting a point that SRS tried to make some weeks ago in another thread. It's not hypocritical at all to carefully consider the source of an assertion. In fact it is required for critical thinking. If Michael Moore were to write an article or make a documentary showing that W's of MD HAD actually been found, I would be inclined to believe it, not because I'm a MM acolyte, but because it dulls the ax he is grinding. Conversely, when a neocon insists that the W's of MD really have been found, I shall insist on indpendent confirmation because that is their party line. Hell, let's all insist on independent confirmation from multiple sources for *everything* rather than believing a single internet article or somesuch. (In fact, I believe this was darn close to SRS's point). SRS never told you you weren't entitled to your opinion - only suggested that she was disinclined to unquestioningly accept "facts" from your source. |
|
13 Jul 04 - 11:18 PM (#1225067) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Nerd, I beg to differ, but there was confusion after the first plane hit, at least here in the NYC area, as to the size of the plane. I remember listening to the radio and hearing an eyewitness describe it as a corporate jet, not a jumbo. Commuter plane was also used. This was in the minutes after the attack. WCBS-AM had a traffic reporter in the air when the first plane hit and he did not even describe it as a plane. His words were to the effect that there was some sort of "catastrophe" on the tower. The copter got as close to the scene as possible and described the gaping hole, fire and smoke - but he was very cautious about calling it a plane crash until it was confirmed from other sources. Except for the people who actually saw the first plane hit, there was immediate confusion. Yes, within about 5 to 10 minutes the confirmation did come in that it was a jumbo jet. As you said, it really doesn't matter. What does matter is that there were people who knew what was going on. Look at the 9/11 report. There is still a question as to why Bush did not react. |
|
14 Jul 04 - 04:29 AM (#1225160) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Teribus Nerd, All I can state is what my initial reaction was. The news coverage we received was via CNN and BBC, the news report on "The one and only Dai's" link came from another agency. Good point I did miss the "them" in Metchosin's post, my apologies. I do not believe I did miss the point regarding what they President was told and when. Evident by my post of ,13 Jul 04 - 01:47 AM: "...what the President was told that morning was that an aircraft (i.e. THE FIRST ONE NERD) had crashed into one of the WTC Towers, simply that, nothing more - his immediate reaction to that news was that it must have been an accident. It was only after THE SECOND INCIDENT that he was informed that the country was under attack." The above disproves your: "Teribus was trying to argue that Bush didn't know the country was under attack at the time of Moore's footage because that was only the first plane." - Quite clearly, Yes? Now let's go to what you reckon was Moores point: "But he went through about twenty minutes of photo-op, seven of them reading My Pet Goat, before he did anything. That was kind of Moore's point all along." What would you have done Nerd? What would you have expected him to do? In doing what he did, he took a leaf out of Wellington's book and refused to run around like a headless chicken - as it would appear you would rather have liked him to. He got up, thanked the children and left the classroom and went and talked to his staff, who HAD been in contact with those in touch with what was going on. What would you have preferred - panic, hysteria - he displayed neither - he did appear in front of the assembled press corps at 09:29/09:30 to make a statement, he made that fairly calmly as well. |
|
14 Jul 04 - 09:14 AM (#1225282) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Ron, I wasn't trying to contradict you that there was confusion. I was merely saying that I didn't experience as much of it because I heard the news ten minutes later than you, when the first plane was confirmed as a jumbo and the second had not yet hit. Teribus, If you meant what you now say you meant, then you're just obscuring the point again. What he was told after the first plane hit is irrelevant to the film. In the film we see him being told about the second plane and the attack. That's the only thing relevant to the film, which is what this thread is about. The whole question of what he was told after the FIRST plane hit is another of your smokescreens, diverting attention from the question: why was he so slow to act? As to your second point, He got up, thanked the children and left the classroom you are wrong, and that's what this whole part of the film is about. The president stayed for seven minutes with the children after he heard about the second plane, then got up, went through about fifteen more minutes of photo-op, in the school, THEN left. What I would have done, and what I would have wanted HIM to do, is get up immediately, say "I'm really sorry, kids, but I've just heard about an emergency in New York, and I need to get more information on it," and leave, calmly but quickly. The kids would have found out what was going on and probably would have forgiven him. Nobody said he should "run around like a headless chicken," or show panic or hysteria. This is another distortion thrown around by people determined to defend Bush no matter what. |
|
14 Jul 04 - 09:38 AM (#1225292) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Nerd, Thanks for clearing that up. It was a confusing morning, especially if you were watching TV news. There were conflicting reports that as many as 7 planes were hijacked, that there were explosions in the streets of D.C., and other wrong information. It was a panic situation and the media was giving out information before they had a chance to confirm it. Teribus, You ask, what would "you" have done. That isn't the question to ask. I don't think any of us here on Mudcat received any votes in 2000 election, which is why we aren't sitting in the Oval Office. The person who WAS elected FAILED to react. It is very possible that the other three planes could have been brought down before they inflicted their devestating damage. It is a hard call to make, having to shoot down a civilian airliner, but the FAA KNEW that there were several hijacked planes, one of which flew into the WTC. Bush froze, pure and simple. No one EVER suggested that he panic, we only suggest that he should have acted like the Commander-in-chief instead of Mr. Rogers. The movie clearly shows his glazed look AFTER being told that the second plane hit and he sat there for 7 more minutes before getting his ass out of the chair and begin acting like the president If someone can't do their job, they should be fired. |
|
16 Jul 04 - 05:20 AM (#1226770) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: beardedbruce GUEST,TIA : "BeardedBruce - with all due respect, in this, and numerous other threads, I believe you have been repeatedly distorting a point that SRS tried to make some weeks ago in another thread. It's not hypocritical at all to carefully consider the source of an assertion. In fact it is required for critical thinking. ..... SRS never told you you weren't entitled to your opinion - only suggested that she was disinclined to unquestioningly accept "facts" from your source. " I beg to differ. I was told that there was NO NEED to even look at the facts I had presented, because of the source. I pointed out that I try to look at all the viewpoints presented, because ALL sides will only report those points that show their side in a favorable light. SRS refused to even consider discussuion of the facts I had brought up- even though they were of UN statements, by UN personnel. As I said, the source was not sufficiently "pure". And SRS has repeatedly told me that I am not entitled to my opinion- please look at the postings. |
|
16 Jul 04 - 07:32 AM (#1226834) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,TIA Sigh |
|
16 Jul 04 - 08:53 PM (#1227375) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: DougR For a bunch of people who profess to despise "war profiteers" you sure are high on one of the biggest profiteers of the whole shebang ...Michael Moore. DougR |
|
16 Jul 04 - 10:48 PM (#1227430) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Clint Keller According to my dictionary: profiteer n. 1. One who makes excessive profits on goods in short supply. Michael M is just bringing the news. He's no more a profiteer than any editorial writer or than any of the TV networks; in fact that's where he got a lot of his stuff. He hasn't defrauded anyone; you can see what he's selling. I don't think any of his film clips are doctored. Not like charging for meals he hadn't delivered, say. clint |
|
16 Jul 04 - 11:11 PM (#1227438) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Little Hawk I never criticize people for making a profit while they are doing something worthwhile, but I object to it when they do something destructive. I believe that's one of the key points in Michael Moore's film. The Iraq war was launched for spurious reasons, in order that various people could profit hugely. Those people were mostly located in the oil industry and the military-industrial complex. They have alliegiance to no nation and are not interested in promoting either freedom or democracy anywhere. Quite the contrary. They are interested in enlarging their power and increasing their wealth, and maintaining a constant threat of war in order to strengthen their grip on society. This sort of thing was described quite well in George Orwell's "1984". It requires a compliant (meaning "bought") mainstream media...and for the most part it has had one, so far. The media is basically there just to cheerlead what the Sy$tem has already decided to do, and to keep the public fearful and confused. The exercise of elections is held periodically to give people the impression that they have the power to effect change...but both major parties have been bought out long ago by the same basic interests...so to imagine that real change is possible under such circumstances is optimistic, to say the least. Still, Bush's administration richly deserves to be tossed out of office, and I hope they are. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 05:56 AM (#1227545) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: rich-joy and then there's also THIS idea for consideration : http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/et043.html Cheers! R-J |
|
17 Jul 04 - 11:46 AM (#1227652) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos Well it seems a little far-fetched, but no more delusory than the Bushiote world-view, I suppose. A Here's a LINK TO THE ABOVE PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/et043.html |
|
18 Jul 04 - 11:53 PM (#1228684) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos Here's one perspective on military familes who have gone to the movie, and their responses to it. Highly interesting. A |
|
19 Jul 04 - 07:56 AM (#1228862) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,TIA By the DougR classification, FOX News is a major war profiteer. |
|
19 Jul 04 - 02:55 PM (#1229147) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Jack the Sailor FOX News is a major war profiteer. Heck yes!! |
|
19 Jul 04 - 09:06 PM (#1229440) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: kendall I saw on the news tonight that Fahrenheit 9/11 is number 5 on the money maker chart today. |
|
19 Jul 04 - 09:09 PM (#1229445) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Ebbie Well, tonight I get to go see it. Is there anything in particular I should note? Some friends have said that they were not aware that the bush's inaugural parade had been egged and that police were beating back (paraphrasing here) the protesters. Any info on that? |
|
19 Jul 04 - 10:02 PM (#1229484) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos Let us hear your thoughts Ebbie.... A |
|
20 Jul 04 - 11:21 AM (#1229867) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Ebbie Clint Keller on a different thread: The scary thing about A. et al. is not that they're a conspiracy, it's that they're a consensus. Exactly the thought I came home with last night. It reminds me of Deliverance- if the Powers are focused and cohesive, what hope is there? If we get Bush out, what then? Oil and jobs and MONEY: The speaker first says "invasion of Iraq" and changes it, the next breath, to "liberation of Iraq". This war is totally cynical, unconscionable, hopeless… Lila Lipscomb- much as I would like her personally, I have to wonder: What was she thinking?! She sent them off to war- did she take for granted they would return home alive? Was she concerned only for her children and by extension, the US kids and not for the carnage Iraq would suffer? What about their youngsters and grandparents and homes and soldiers?? What about Iraq's future? Most dis-heartened I've been in awhile. |
|
20 Jul 04 - 02:54 PM (#1230041) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: DougR Clint: I think you might be hard-pressed to prove that all of the facts in Moore's film are, indeed, facts. Take a look at Moorelies.com for example. Kendall: Yep, I heard (on the Fox News Network of course) that so far the war profiteer, Michael Moore, has grossed close to a hundred million dollars with his little "documentary." Got to be a LOT of profit in there somewhere. If he can't find it, I'll bet some accountant with Halliburton could show him how to! :>) DougR |
|
20 Jul 04 - 03:57 PM (#1230105) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Jack the Sailor DougR Mr. Moore has had his film checked by experts and is daring people like you to prove that it is not factual. That may be tough for you if you have not seen the film and have no valid way to judge. Yet you are judging. How curious. |
|
20 Jul 04 - 04:06 PM (#1230114) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: DougR Not so curious, Jack. Why waste money seeing a film touting a point of view you do not agree with? For education? Aw, come on. Would you pay your good money to go see a movie praising George W. Bush? I kinda doubt it. The veracity of Nr. Moore's film has been called into question by several people. I provided a website for one of them. DougR |
|
20 Jul 04 - 04:26 PM (#1230145) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Ebbie If I send you the money for two tickets to the documentary, DougR, will you go? |
|
20 Jul 04 - 08:11 PM (#1230284) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Bill Hahn//\\ Moore makes no bones---he is Bush Bashing But he is also not changing facts---interpretations via narratives can sure be taken in different ways. But--the facts remains. I do believe that is strongest points in the film come when he is not narrating---merely showing Bush in his own words, Marine recruiters soliciting the unemployed and poor, soldiers with pro and con opinions of the war (the pro ones were frightening---real haters, and also his closing narrative. I do believe, to make the film more effective, he should have avoided narrating the schoolroom sequence on 9/11 and let the pictures and the time frames speak for themselves. That would have precluded criticism of his interpretation and let us judge for ourselves by looking at this lost little face of W. Unlike--say, the face of FDR after Pearl Harbor, JFK vis a vis Cuba, and, yes, Truman vis a vis MacArthur and his removal of command. Bill Hahn |
|
20 Jul 04 - 08:17 PM (#1230288) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Don Firth As I mentioned above, Moore told the interviewer on 60 Minutes, "I just put people on camera and they embarrass themselves!" Don Firth |
|
20 Jul 04 - 08:32 PM (#1230305) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Clint Keller Haven't looked at Moorlies.com yet but I will. When I said facts I was thinking of what the filmclips themselves show. I don't think the shots of Bush and the Havemores was faked. Nor the shots of the congressmen baffled by the idea that maybe their sons should go to war, and so on. I've got to go now but I'll give you a report on Moorelies when I get back. clint |
|
20 Jul 04 - 09:26 PM (#1230335) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd As I said before, DougR, Moorelies.com is a site about anything Moore has ever said that the site's contributors don't agree with. It has little to do with the film. It's about whether he REALLY got a hug from Tom Daschle or not. Anytime anyone else's memory does not agree with Moore about anything--HE'S A LIAR!!!! LIAR!!! But as of my last visit, they were saying very little about this film. In other words, you provided a link to a crappy site which doesn't even criticize this film very much or very well. |
|
21 Jul 04 - 06:15 AM (#1230537) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Wolfgang The site moorelies.com has a lot about the film (reviews and comments). And it has given me my Mudcat laugh of the week: Doug recommending having a look at a site which prints Le Monde's commentary in the English translation. And I read the following sentences: We have already seen the hallucinatory moment where George W. Bush sits dazed in an elementary school chair as it is announced to him that a second plane has struck the World Trade Center. But here it takes on its full force, its overwhelming impact, having been restored to its original length: a visual demonstration that this man is incapable of leading the United States. (my emphasis) Doug, I really wouldn't have thought you'd recommend to read a site printing this about Bush. Perhaps, somewhere deep in your liberal roots, you share that sentiment? (:-) Moorelies seems to have skipped the Le Monde commentary by now (guess why), but it still can be seen in the caches. I'm not going to see the film when (if?) it comes over to us. I doubt there is anything new for me in that film and I hate propaganda, even if I'd share the basic sentiment. Wolfgang |
|
21 Jul 04 - 06:35 AM (#1230550) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: kendall Every word Bush spoke in this film is accurate. He spoke those words from time to time over the past three years, and none of them were faked. The man can not speak in whole sentences. Moore didn't have to make a fool of Bush, and I wish he hadn't tried. Bush Does that all by himself. I didn't see this film as propaganda, mostly I saw it as reshowing of his idiotic statements and his incredible incompetence. |
|
21 Jul 04 - 10:39 AM (#1230673) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Oops. Sorry to DougR and thanks to Wolfgang. Last time I looked at Moorelies it was more or less a blog and they were talking about lies they felt he was telling outside the film. |
|
21 Jul 04 - 01:48 PM (#1230788) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Jack the Sailor Doug, I read "Plan of Attack" because the Bush/Cheney campaign recommended it. I was expecting to be critical of the book, but upon reading it, if find that Bush/Cheney must have been counting on people not reading it. If you are going to criticize something, get to know it. Know thy enemy, you may find more ammunition. At least you reduce the risk of looking like a fool. |
|
21 Jul 04 - 02:21 PM (#1230801) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: kendall Doug is no fool; he simply doesn't want to believe he's backing the wrong horse, or, horse's ass as it were. |
|
21 Jul 04 - 07:56 PM (#1230973) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: DougR Wolfgang: just shows you how democratic and fair I REALLY am! :>) Ebbie: sure send the money along. The Bush/Cheney campaign can probably use it! DougR |
|
22 Jul 04 - 01:58 AM (#1231144) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Clint Keller Doug- I checked it out Moorelies.com. The lead article is on Linda Ronstadt getting fired from that casino in Las Vegas. It has nothing to do with Moore lying. Most of it is complaints about Moore himself and his opinions, not the truth of his movie but there's a piece by a 17-year-old girl that says that there are several members of congress with children in the military rather than just one. I'll try to check that... Though if it's true it doesn't change the outraged reactions of the congressmen he approached, which to me is the point of the episode. She seems to stick to facts better than most of thie writers, though there's some name -calling. But she says some other things I want to read again. But, for instance, the downloadable anti-Moore flyer says he is 'Calling for the deaths of American soldiers: "I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."' He's not *calling for* deaths, he's *predicting* deaths. They don't read their own writing. Well, the world's full of people who can't tell facts from opinions, &/or don't care. I don't know why it always surprises me. more later. Or more Moore. clint |
|
23 Jul 04 - 04:16 PM (#1232408) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos Seer also this report from the AP. GOP made nervous...always a good thing. A |
|
26 Jul 04 - 11:49 AM (#1233979) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST Jack The sailor should note that ABC,NBC and CBS do their fair share of producing slanted liberal propaganda also. Thats 3 to 1 who has the lead? Since your a Democrat I'll spell it out...... that 3 times as many! Fools |
|
26 Jul 04 - 01:07 PM (#1234035) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd Sorry, GUEST, but CBS, ABC and NBC are not the liberal bastions you imagine them to be. First of all, they are owned by the giant media conglomerates that Bush's new FCC regulations were written for. So their corporate management is firmly Republican. Secondly, their newsrooms, which are mixed and have people to present both viewpoints, play by an entirely different set of rules. They use BALANCE as an actual principle (rather than an empty mantra), so they tell you both sides even when they probably shouldn't. Using Global Warming as an example, if 95% of reputable scientists say Global Warming is a problem, and 5%, who are paid by right-wing think tanks, say Global Warming is not a problem, then the "liberal" media will say "some scientists think Global Warming will be a problem, but others are not so sure." It's a true statement, and it's "balanced" between the viewpoints, but not between the numbers or credibility of those who share the viewpoints. Then on the networks there are some people, like John Stossel on ABC, who are simply paid huge amounts of money by giant polluting corporations; they pay him ostensibly to speak at corporate functions. He makes millions off of them, then goes on ABC and says "The scientists that I trust say Global Warming won't be a problem!" FOX and most of the other Cable networks, on the other hand, are blatantly right wing and don't make any effort to balance. So you get the so called liberal media telling you "Global Warming might or might not be a problem," liars embedded in the "liberal" media telling you "Global Warming won't be a problem" and the cable news channels, especially FOX, saying "no credible scientists REALLY think global warming will be a problem." So how surprising is it that most Americans don't really think there's any urgency to the Global Warming issue? On political issues it works the same way. It's a sad sight to see! |
|
26 Jul 04 - 04:23 PM (#1234175) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Jack the Sailor I'm not a Democrat. |
|
26 Jul 04 - 04:52 PM (#1234192) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Terry Allan Hall It fascinates me to see/hear people who not only have never seen F 9/11, but proudly state that they NEVER will, rant about what trash it is. Bling leading the blind. |
|
26 Jul 04 - 05:41 PM (#1234231) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Don Firth Good analysis, Nerd, and right on the button. Then there is PBS, who might be slightly more "liberal" that the Big Three. Their "flaw" (if someone wants to think of it that way) is that they show essentially apolitical science programs like Nova and Nature, in which some episodes have done in-depth analysis of things like air and water pollution and tell it like it really is. In The Jim Lehrer News Hour, they start by giving the headlines, then do three or four in-depth reports each evening, not just sound-bites and bumper-stickers. In-depth reports tend to inform people, and we can't have that, now can we? And granted, Bill Moyers (NOW with Bill Moyers, 9:00 p.m. Friday nights, at least where I live) is an admitted liberal, but what gets the right-wing really screaming about him is that he reports stories that he thinks you ought to know, and that the right-wing would rather you not. Liberal media? Maybe Alternative Radio on NPR--once a week. Don Firth |
|
26 Jul 04 - 06:21 PM (#1234261) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Jack the Sailor Don This is just my opinion for what it is worth. I find NPR and PBS, which readily acknowledge their corporate sponsors to be fairly right wing. No one, except maybe Link TV is consistanly speaking for left wing causes like workers rights etc. Left of Fox they may be if war mongering and partisan attacks are considered "right". They also go through extraordinary lengths to show both sides. I've heard the announcement of the discovery of a new fossil carbon dated at a million countered with the view of a "creation scientist" who said it couldn't possibly be older than 6,000 years. |
|
27 Jul 04 - 05:21 AM (#1234588) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: The Fooles Troupe Top Secret Clip released too late for Moore's Movie! |
|
28 Jul 04 - 02:56 AM (#1235340) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Clint Keller Doug: As promised I tried checking the facts on Moorelies. com, but it was hard. Lots of Googling & I'm not a superb Googler. And most of their facts are opinions, as I complained about before... So I went to Moore's own site; I hadn't looked at it before. He gives the source of every statement he made in F911 and you can look it up and check it for yourself. I don't have a script, so he may have said some things that are not on his site, but I'll betcha he didn't; I trust the Bush supporters are diligent enough to find anything he missed. Like the saying goes, you & Moore are both entitled to your own opinions, but neither of you are entitled to your own facts. He's documented his facts; better stick to arguing with his opinions. clint |
|
02 Sep 04 - 02:55 PM (#1262806) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,NO MOORE OF MICHAEL MOORE! Bill H - So do you go see all the movies made each year? This movie is strictly entertainment- if you can call Michael Moore's opinions entertaining - no news value. This is not a documentary, but an editorial. Thus is falls into the category of "entertainment". Why should everyone in American go see the movie? To put more money in Michael Moore's pockets so he can continue his line of fantasy books and movies. I don't know about you, but I really don't think it was necessary for everyone to go see Britney Spears movie debut to know it was a bad movie. Did I need to go see that too in order to say it wasn't worth seeing? Why should I when I can see the highlights, know what it is about, see the reviews, the story and what was the main parts of the movie - that is enough for me to know it is crap. And when the majority of information report in this so called film you love has been proven to be false - why on earth would I want to subject myself to this film. On top of it, Michael Moore is everything I do not believe in. Until he gives me a good hour of his time- I see not need sitting for a hour listening to his crazy opininons. This is why it is UNNESSARY for us to go see the movie - because we already know it is crap! On top of things....maybe you are right about the woman's son being a filmmaker before he makes a film in opposition to Michael Moore. Apparently, knowing how to "Edit" and put film clips together to prove false statements is a great skill to have...it seems to have worked for Michael Moore! |
|
02 Sep 04 - 03:00 PM (#1262809) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Guest, you are obviously a troll. |
|
02 Sep 04 - 03:10 PM (#1262813) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos And a badly mistaken troll, to boot. There was no fantasy in the film. You've just been so badly suckered your head is spinning,that's all. A |
|
02 Sep 04 - 03:40 PM (#1262836) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Frankly, I do think that you have to see the Britany Spears movie if you wish to call it crap. I do not intend to see it and I have no opinion about it. I have watched Fahrenheit 9/11 twice. The first time was because I was interested in the topic, and the second time I paid close attention to his craft. I do work in the industry and I had a professional curiosity as well. Documentaries MUST have a POV. Moore certainly has one. Moore also have evidence to back it up. The response this brainwashed troll gave us is nothing more than a scathing attack on Michael Moore, but there is NOT ONE explanation or rebuttal for ANY of Moore's claims. While I won't vouch for everything he puts forth, I have yet to see anyone give solid evidence that disproves his work. They call him names in a schoolboy attempt to discredit him, but they have no evidence to have an honest rebuttal. |
|
09 Sep 04 - 09:27 PM (#1268131) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Alaska Mike *I just saw his picture on the cover,* *I hope he buys 5 copies for his mother.* *Michael Moore's sweet smiling face,* *On the cover of the Rolling Stone.* Just got my most recent issue and was glad to see Michael Moore grinning like a Cheshire Cat on the front cover. |
|
10 Sep 04 - 09:06 PM (#1268948) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,petr from above guest. Jack The sailor should note that ABC,NBC and CBS do their fair share of producing slanted liberal propaganda also. Thats 3 to 1 who has the lead? Since your a Democrat I'll spell it out...... that 3 times as many! Fools SPELL it out? looks like you're the halfwit on this one. the best line of f9/11 when bush says fool me once, shame on ...you fool me twice?... well we wont get fooled again. on that point I agree with W. |
|
10 Sep 04 - 11:30 PM (#1269022) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: WFDU - Ron Olesko ABC, NBC, and CBS are liberal??? Hardly!! Having worked for NBC for 12 years I can tell you it was very hard to find a liberal in the newsroom! The fact that none of the three networks bother to cover what Kerry's message and instead focus on Vietnam and polls shows how "liberal" they are. Clinton's blowjob became their bread and butter. The networks love a scandal, they do not care who offers it. The networks are just trying to scoop each other. It was fairly obvious on Election Day 2000 when all three networks fell in line to declare George Bush president after Fox did. While there were still questions, none of the networks bothered to get to the truth. The squarely conservative entertainers, I mean talk show hosts, can say what they want about the liberal media. It is a smokescreen that only fools people who are not interested in forming their own opinion. You can drink the kool-aid if you like, but at least there are a few journalists that try to uncover the truth. Just because your boy is the subject does not make him a target. If you do the crime, you do the time. |
|
11 Sep 04 - 01:53 AM (#1269075) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Peace "If you do the crime, you do the time." I wonder if this applies to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? |
|
11 Sep 04 - 06:23 PM (#1269549) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: robomatic Probably won't see it for the same reason I haven't and won't see: Pearl Harbor which distorts the actual sense and flavor of the US in the 40's Gettysburg which does the same and attempts to re-write the reasons for the American Civil War Michael's got every right to put his view out there, he can apparently distort with the best of 'em and by this I mean Oliver Stone But the very power of those images can distort thought and I'm gonna guard my memes! |
|
11 Sep 04 - 06:49 PM (#1269586) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Jeri Robomatic, if you mean that some of the footage, or the facts or commentary in the movie may cause you to question what you believe is real, yes. I'd be afraid too. There is editorializing by Moore, but he doesn't try to hide it. It was his conclusions about the facts, but the facts themselves are open to anyone's interpretation, and you can always do your own research later. |
|
12 Sep 04 - 12:51 AM (#1269758) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Amos Good idea -- gyard those memes, give it all you've got. The last thing you want is fresh air getting in there!! :> ) A |
|
12 Sep 04 - 10:46 AM (#1269960) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: robomatic I'm more concerned with lasting memories created by powerful images which are based on non-events, lies, misdirections, and bad history. Don't confuse fresh air with an ill wind. Anyone who's sat through even a few mintues of "Weekend at Bernie's" or "Baby Geniuses" knows where I'm coming from. |
|
12 Sep 04 - 12:58 PM (#1270074) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: Nerd "powerful images which are based on non-events" All images are based on events. In dramatic movies they are based on events staged by actors. In Fahrenheit 9/11 they are not. They are based on events that really happened. So far, even among the people who disagree with Moore, I've never seen ANYONE claim he faked footage. Sounds to me like you're just being stubborn! |
|
14 Sep 04 - 03:11 AM (#1271792) Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses From: GUEST,Justin I think you will get a kick out of this, YAFM9: Michael Moore. |