Just got back from Farenheit 9/11

[NoMyths]

Crazy scene...the theater here is showing it on two screens every hour and a half from 1:30 on...and every showing's been sold out 2-3 hours in advance. Two different news stations had crews down at the theater interviewing folks. According to the manager, every screening has ended with the audience applauding (ours ended this way as well). Folks were handing out bumper stickers ("Defend America: Defeat Bush") and flyers. First time I've felt that seeing a film was a political act...wild.

Since I don't think I've posted anything above that will get criticized, I'll quit while I'm ahead. ;)

[Easy Mac]

did you go to the terrace? thats like the only place thats playing it.

I wanted to go, but I had to go out of town for the weekend so I could get my modem.

We should have seen it together... it could have been a liberal date :p

[NoMyths]

Yup. 8:30 showing. Was wondering when I'd hear from you about Chucktown...we ought to grab a beer sometime.

[WussGawd]

Saw it here in Avondale. 18 theaters in the Phoenix area are showing it. It was filled up, but not too backed up. I know local Democratic loyalists were planning big get togethers downtown.

Great film. Far above Moore's previous work. I look forward to his acceptance speech at next year's Academy Awards ceremony, because this is a far better film than Bowling for Columbine.

[Maple Leafs]

I will give Moore this... as much as he plays the left-wing anti-capitalist card, the man knows how to promote a movie. This thing is going to be huge.

[GoldenEagle]

Great. Every liberal on the board posting in one thread. :)

[Chubby]

Great. Every liberal on the board posting in one thread. :)

The sad thing is your right.

[tucker342]

I know, I feel so lonely...:(;)

I plan on seeing it pretty soon.

[rexallllsc]

I guess I'm not sure why people are clapping? I'd be bummed to see something so damning, if indeed it is...ya know?

[korme]

:claps: Wow that is awesome! The U.S. in shambles! :clap clap:

[Celeval]

Yeah, the lines at the Regal 24 in Atlanta were pretty popular last night... we were at the theatre watchingthenotebook and the lines for F911 were backed up nearly as bad as they were for the Harry Potter release.

[WussGawd]

I guess I'm not sure why people are clapping? I'd be bummed to see something so damning, if indeed it is...ya know?

It is very damning...but the thing is, it's a great piece of filmmaking, regardless of whether you are a liberal, conservative, or crypto-fascist, er, neoconservative. I think the fact that it is so moving is why it gathers applause at the end. Personally, I walked out of it angry, and I knew most of the stuff covered in the film. :)

The thing that sticks this head and shoulders above Moore's other work is that he spends a whole lot less time in front of the camera, and a lot more behind. This is particularly true in the last half, when he starts to follow the trials of Lila Lipscomb from his hometown of Flint, MI. She goes through the motions, proud of her children, talking about the opportunities provided by the military, proud to be an American, proud that her son Michael is in Iraq. Then she learns about his disillusionment, and shortly after, his death. The grief of this woman had me blinking back tears. It was far more authentic, and far more real than anything you'll see in a work of fiction.

Like I said, the Academy might as well hand Michael Moore another gold statuette for Best Documentary right now, because this film is *that* good. Wouldn't surprise me if it got a nod as a Best Picture nominee.

[DeToxRox]

How is this a documentary?

All it documents is HIS personal hated for Bush.

In my book thats propaganda above all else.

[DeToxRox]

It was far more authentic, and far more real than anything you'll see in a work of fiction.


So how about when that senator tells him his nephew is on his way to Afghanistan? Oh .. wait .. that was edited out. Hmm.. sounds like this movie has a lot of fiction.

[Easy Mac]

Looks like its on pace to make 20-30 million the 1st weekend on less than 900 screens. I think it should break the record for the highst grossing "documentary" in only 3 days.

Fridays numbers (with White Chicks close behind):
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"> <tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">1</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fahrenheit911.htm)

868</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">$8,200,000

10921.5% / $9,447
<nobr>$8,358,000 / 3</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">2</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">WHITE CHICKS (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=whitechicks.htm)

2,726</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">$6,760,000

105.6% / $2,480
<nobr>$14,263,000 / 3</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">3</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">DODGEBALL: A TRUE UNDERDOG STORY (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dodgeball.htm)

3,020</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">$6,436,000

69.1% / $2,131
<nobr>$55,107,000 / 8</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">4</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">THE NOTEBOOK (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=notebook.htm)

2,303</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">$5,220,000

-- / $2,267
<nobr>$5,220,000 / -6</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">5</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">THE TERMINAL (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=terminal.htm)

2,914</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">$4,138,000

97.9% / $1,420
<nobr>$32,043,000 / 8</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">6</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=harrypotter3.htm)

3,404</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">$3,379,000

51% / $993
<nobr>$203,669,000 / 22</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">7</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">SHREK 2 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=shrek2.htm)

2,937</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">$3,187,000

62.8% / $1,085
<nobr>$389,753,000 / 38</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">8</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">GARFIELD: THE MOVIE (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=garfield.htm)

2,880</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">$2,401,000

53% / $834
<nobr>$51,171,000 / 15</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">9</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">TWO BROTHERS (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=twobrothers.htm)

2,175</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">$2,070,000

-- / $952
<nobr>$2,070,000 / 1</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">10</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">THE STEPFORD WIVES (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=stepfordwives.htm)

2,437</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">$1,649,000

46.2% / $677
<nobr>$45,454,000 / 15</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">11</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dayaftertomorrow.htm)

2,212</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">$1,363,000

69.8% / $616
<nobr>$172,234,000 / 29</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">12</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=chroniclesofriddick.htm)

2,443</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">$1,283,000

45.4% / $525
<nobr>$47,903,000 / 15</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">13</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=aroundtheworldin80days.htm)

2,801</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">$1,270,000

44.1% / $453
<nobr>$15,277,000 / 10</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#ffffff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">14</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">TROY (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=troy.htm)

711</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">$291,000

33.4% / $409
<nobr>$130,240,000 / 43</nobr></td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td><td bgcolor="#f4f4ff" align="center" valign="top">
N/A</td></tr></tbody> </table>

[NoMyths]

That is one hell of a per-screen average.

[Kodos]

We are ignoring the more important issue here. People are actually going to see "Garfield:The Movie."

[rexallllsc]

Like I said, the Academy might as well hand Michael Moore another gold statuette for Best Documentary right now, because this film is *that* good. Wouldn't surprise me if it got a nod as a Best Picture nominee.

See, that's where I take issue.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/Entertainment/michael_moore040620-5.html#anchor

Moore was interviewed by George Stehpanopoulos, and had this to say:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say this is an op-ed … and that this is not just straight journalism. What responsibility do you feel you have in this post-9/11 environment—

MOORE: Did I mention it's a comedy too?

He can't have it both ways, IMO. Either he's trying to make a joke out of it, or he's trying to document events.

Someone said on either this board or another the other day, that they used to laugh when he had the show TV Nation on Fox...how he would park outside of rich peoples houses and badger them...funny, he's now one of those people. He railed on car companies for leaving Flint...yet he's done the same exact thing, living in a multi-million dollar home in NYC.

The guy is a propogandist in the worst form. I don't need his twist of facts to decide I do/don't like George Bush.

That's all :)

[sachmo71]

There are some dangerous leaps of logic being made in this thread.

[Easy Mac]

That is one hell of a per-screen average.
I think Jesus made like 25 or 30K in his first weekend, so Moore is only 1/3 as popular as Jesus.

[clintl]

He can't have it both ways, IMO. Either he's trying to make a joke out of it, or he's trying to document events.



Of course he can. Have you never heard of satire? A lot of people are missing the point of what Moore really does by falling into the false documentary/propaganda dichotomy. Moore is really a satirist, and he's not doing anything that other great satirists haven't done in the past. All of the techniques he's using are well-established, honored techniques in the genre.

[DeToxRox]

Of course he can. Have you never heard of satire? A lot of people are missing the point of what Moore really does by falling into the false documentary/propaganda dichotomy. Moore is really a satirist, and he's not doing anything that other great satirists haven't done in the past. All of the techniques he's using are well-established, honored techniques in the genre.

yeah, it is a mockumentary isn't it.

christopher guest must be proud.

[clintl]

yeah, it is a mockumentary isn't it.

christopher guest must be proud.

Don't be dissing satire. It is one of the great art forms. Quite a few of the greatest writers who ever lived were satirists - Swift, Voltaire, Dickens, Twain, Vonnegut. It has a honored tradition, and has made enormous contributions to literary and political discourse.

[stevew]

I think Jesus made like 25 or 30K in his first weekend, so Moore is only 1/3 as popular as Jesus.

Yeah, but that would be for the whole weekend. Moore is on pace to be more popular than Jesus per screen right now.

[DeToxRox]

Don't be dissing satire. It is one of the great art forms. Quite a few of the greatest writers who ever lived were satirists - Swift, Voltaire, Dickens, Twain, Vonnegut. It has a honored tradition, and has made enormous contributions to literary and political discourse.

i have no problems with satires. catch-22 is one of my favorite books.

[Easy Mac]

Yeah, but that would be for the whole weekend. Moore is on pace to be more popular than Jesus per screen right now.
I meant 25-30K per screen. Moore's only got about 10K.

It took Jesus 3 weeks to drop to Moore's level.

<table border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5" bgcolor="#ffffff" style="border-collapse: collapse;" bordercolor="#111111"> <tbody><tr><td valign="top" align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff"><nobr>Feb 27–29 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2004&wknd=09&p=.htm)</nobr></td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">1</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$83,848,082</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">-</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">3,043</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">-</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$27,554</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$125,185,971</td><td valgin="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">1</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" bgcolor="#f4f4ff"><nobr>Mar 5–7 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2004&wknd=10&p=.htm)</nobr></td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">1</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">$53,246,801</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">-36.5%</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">3,170</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">+127</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">$16,797</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">$213,888,740</td><td valgin="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">2</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff"><nobr>Mar 12–14 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2004&wknd=11&p=.htm)</nobr></td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">1</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$32,130,978</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">-39.7%</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">3,221</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">+51</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$9,975</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$264,510,209</td><td valgin="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">3</td></tr></tbody> </table>

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I still want to see Dodgeball.

[WussGawd]

See, that's where I take issue.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/Entertainment/michael_moore040620-5.html#anchor

Moore was interviewed by George Stehpanopoulos, and had this to say:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say this is an op-ed … and that this is not just straight journalism. What responsibility do you feel you have in this post-9/11 environment—

MOORE: Did I mention it's a comedy too?

He can't have it both ways, IMO. Either he's trying to make a joke out of it, or he's trying to document events.

Someone said on either this board or another the other day, that they used to laugh when he had the show TV Nation on Fox...how he would park outside of rich peoples houses and badger them...funny, he's now one of those people. He railed on car companies for leaving Flint...yet he's done the same exact thing, living in a multi-million dollar home in NYC.

The guy is a propogandist in the worst form. I don't need his twist of facts to decide I do/don't like George Bush.

That's all :)

You know, I think this sort of thinking (and I'm not attacking you, believe me) that documentaries or for that matter, media sources, have to be fair and balanced is exactly what is wrong with the mainstream media in this country. You don't see Limbaugh or Franken trying to be fair and balanced. Even though they claim to be fair and balanced, Fox News is anything but that. So why do useless networks like CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, who never take a stand on anything that might endanger their credentials for the next White House Press Briefing pretend it?

I have watched a lot of documentaries over the years, and they *all* look at things with a point of view. There'd be little reason for a writer-director to fight for the shoestring financing that these usually get if he or she didn't have pretty strong feelings on the subject of the film. Truthfully, the only difference between Moore and the others is that he picks topics that piss off the establishment (GM, the gun lobby, the Saud, er, Bush administration) which makes him a higher profile target.

Now if somebody doesn't want to go, or wants to question things in such a film, go for it. FWIW, even Michael Moore has referred to his film as an "op-ed" piece.

Viewed in that context, decisions such as omitting 1 of 435 Congressmen whose son is going to Afghanistan means little. The whole sequence in the film that Moore leaves in amounts to about 2 minutes of film time (out of 2 hours), and basically acts as some much needed comic relief after the heartwrenching scene where Lila Lipscomb talks about the death of her son. It's a throwaway bit, and it takes up so little volume of the film that it's a ringing indictment of the right that this is the only thing they seem to be able to nitpick.

[WussGawd]

How is this a documentary?

All it documents is HIS personal hated for Bush.

In my book thats propaganda above all else.

Did you see the film?

How do you KNOW what it's about? Because Rush and Hannity told you?

[WussGawd]

We are ignoring the more important issue here. People are actually going to see "Garfield:The Movie."

Well, there are a lot of kids out of school is the only thing I can figure. :D

[BishopMVP]

A Day After Tomorrow grossed $173 million? And Garfield $52 million? People will see anything.

And Moore himself has said this isn't a documentary, so that debate should be dead.

[WussGawd]

A Day After Tomorrow grossed $173 million? And Garfield $52 million? People will see anything.

And Moore himself has said this isn't a documentary, so that debate should be dead.

Actually, this has been a terrible summer for movies so far. Really the only things I've seen that I've enjoyed were the Harry Potter flick and F:9/11

[BishopMVP]

Even though they claim to be fair and balanced, Fox News is anything but that. So why do useless networks like CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, who never take a stand on anything that might endanger their credentials for the next White House Press Briefing pretend it?If you can't even see that a network like CNN is biased at all, it's probably hopeless, but a documentary records a real event/storyline, then presents it to the viewer and lets the viewer draw a conclusion. While the storyline following the woman from Michigan would fit this, the rest of the film doesn't.

EDIT - And Dodgeball was hilarious.

[The_herd]

I think Jesus made like 25 or 30K in his first weekend, so Moore is only 1/3 as popular as Jesus.

Not in his mind.

[timmynausea]

I went to see the film last night. It was really great, and Michael Moore seemed to tone things down a bit, in terms of his sense of humor and irony being the main things in his movies.
A couple of high school kids showed up wearing homemade shirts that said stuff like "I hate Moore and Kerry and Gore and Iraq," and "A liberal America isn't America." They tried to applaude during stuff that didn't merit it, like when Bush tells Michael Moore to find real work and the Navy recruiters trying to recruit people. Of course, this sort of seemed to backfire when the entire packed theatre (aside from them) exploded in applause not only at the end of the film, but when the solidier said he wouldn't go back to Iraq to kill other poor people that are no threat to him at all, as well as when another solidier said he would no longer be a republican.
It was crazy, though. We had to drive a half an hour to see it, cause by the afternoon all the showings for the night in Kalamazoo were sold out.

[WussGawd]

If you can't even see that a network like CNN is biased at all, it's probably hopeless, but a documentary records a real event/storyline, then presents it to the viewer and lets the viewer draw a conclusion. While the storyline following the woman from Michigan would fit this, the rest of the film doesn't.

EDIT - And Dodgeball was hilarious.

I think the Lacey Peterson News Network, er, CNN is fast becoming bread and circuses for the masses. If they are left leaning (and I'm not sure they are all that much now), they are far too mealy mouthed and tentative for those of us on the left to view them with anything but scorn. I think CBS, ABC, and NBC's news divisions were dumbed down a long time ago.

60 Minutes still shows guts, but the rest of them are basically worthless.

EDIT: I'll probably wait until DVD on Dodgeball. I don't tend to get out to a ton of movies, so I generally save them for things that I feel are going to lose something going from the big screen to the 50" Plasma.

[rexallllsc]

You know, I think this sort of thinking (and I'm not attacking you, believe me) that documentaries or for that matter, media sources, have to be fair and balanced is exactly what is wrong with the mainstream media in this country. You don't see Limbaugh or Franken trying to be fair and balanced. Even though they claim to be fair and balanced, Fox News is anything but that. So why do useless networks like CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, who never take a stand on anything that might endanger their credentials for the next White House Press Briefing pretend it?

Last I checked, most categorize Limbaugh and Franken as blowhards, no?

I have watched a lot of documentaries over the years, and they *all* look at things with a point of view. There'd be little reason for a writer-director to fight for the shoestring financing that these usually get if he or she didn't have pretty strong feelings on the subject of the film. Truthfully, the only difference between Moore and the others is that he picks topics that piss off the establishment (GM, the gun lobby, the Saud, er, Bush administration) which makes him a higher profile target.

I don't mind him going against the grain, but don't be a child about it. He sounds more like a jilted lover than anything resembling a journalist.

Now if somebody doesn't want to go, or wants to question things in such a film, go for it. FWIW, even Michael Moore has referred to his film as an "op-ed" piece.

...and a comedy (he said so in his interview w/ Stephanopolous).

Viewed in that context, decisions such as omitting 1 of 435 Congressmen whose son is going to Afghanistan means little. The whole sequence in the film that Moore leaves in amounts to about 2 minutes of film time (out of 2 hours), and basically acts as some much needed comic relief after the heartwrenching scene where Lila Lipscomb talks about the death of her son. It's a throwaway bit, and it takes up so little volume of the film that it's a ringing indictment of the right that this is the only thing they seem to be able to nitpick.

I can't say I understand that whole "will you volunteer your son to go to Iraq" thing...last I checked, it was up to each individual person whether or not they serve in the military, not their parents.

In summary, I want to see REAL news. Not, "hey, Bush is friends with the bin Ladens!!" That's almost as weak as saying, "hey, George Bush is friends with Tim McVeigh's dad"...the other bin Laden's are in no way responsible for their psycopath brother, and by most accounts, there are 50+ siblings of Osama.

It's just ridiculous, IMO. Mountain of out of a molehill.

I'll be interested to see how much of this movie looks at Cheney and Wolfowitz...those two seem like the biggest reason we went to Iraq.

[stevew]

I meant 25-30K per screen. Moore's only got about 10K.

It took Jesus 3 weeks to drop to Moore's level.

<table border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5" bgcolor="#ffffff" style="border-collapse: collapse;" bordercolor="#111111"> <tbody><tr><td valign="top" align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff"><nobr>Feb 27–29 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2004&wknd=09&p=.htm)</nobr></td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">1</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$83,848,082</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">-</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">3,043</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">-</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$27,554</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$125,185,971</td><td valgin="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">1</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" bgcolor="#f4f4ff"><nobr>Mar 5–7 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2004&wknd=10&p=.htm)</nobr></td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">1</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">$53,246,801</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">-36.5%</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">3,170</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">+127</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">$16,797</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">$213,888,740</td><td valgin="top" align="right" bgcolor="#f4f4ff">2</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="left" bgcolor="#ffffff"><nobr>Mar 12–14 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2004&wknd=11&p=.htm)</nobr></td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">1</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$32,130,978</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">-39.7%</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">3,221</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">+51</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$9,975</td><td valign="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">$264,510,209</td><td valgin="top" align="right" bgcolor="#ffffff">3</td></tr></tbody> </table>


Yeah, but that 30K for Jesus is for the whole entire weekend. Figuring 9,477 for Friday, 10,500 for Saturday and 8,500 for sunday, Moore would do the same opening tallies as jesus did......you would add Sat and Sundays totals to get the weekend per screen average. Putting Moore pretty close to Jesus.


Daily perscreen breakdowns of the Passions opening weekend.

7,529
10,870
9,156

[Daimyo]

Tried to go see it today... went to a theater a little before noon and every show up until the 10pm one was already sold out. Saw Supersize Me instead. I haven't had that kind of experience (getting sold out of a noon showing!) since the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

[Noop]

http://members.cox.net/praguian/NCAA05_BushCover.jpg


Let's get ready for the election this is going to be one hyped matchup! :)

[Sharpieman]

Wait since Bush is on a EA cover, will that mean he's going to get injured this year?

I'm seeing this movie tomorrow. It's sold out today, all day. Tomorrow it probably will sell out again. Also, the people who posted before arent the only ones who are liberals. I'm as liberal as they come, maybe not NoMyths liberal, but liberal none the less.

[Easy Mac]

Wait since Bush is on a EA cover, will that mean he's going to get injured this year?
He gets injured every year, doesn't he... he's fallen off a segway, chocked on a pretzel, fallen off a bike...

Anyway, I'm going to see dodgeball one of these days with my girl, but she wants to see Farenheit but doesn't want to get offended (she's a republican). She said the name of the movie offended her, and I tried to explain the significance of the name, but she never caught on... maybe I'll go see it after work some day.

[NoMyths]

He gets injured every year, doesn't he... he's fallen off a segway, chocked on a pretzel, fallen off a bike...

Anyway, I'm going to see dodgeball one of these days with my girl, but she wants to see Farenheit but doesn't want to get offended (she's a republican). She said the name of the movie offended her, and I tried to explain the significance of the name, but she never caught on... maybe I'll go see it after work some day.Sounds like your girl wouldn't like the film at all if she's put off just by the title. But she should see it.

Sharpie: I'm not sure that I'm "NoMyths liberal" either...don't believe the hype. ;) Rely on the posts.

[Sharpieman]

Well then if your not the most liberal on the board, I wonder who is.

[NoMyths]

Not sure I've posted enough of my own beliefs for you to make that call, but I'd guess there are plenty of folks more liberal than I. I'm pretty liberal in a lot of ways, but you wouldn't find me working a commune. :)

[IMetTrentGreen]

this is a lot like the supersize thread where no one had actually seen it but were making judgements about it anyway. this has always been a pretty judgemental board, but at least see the damn thing before you call it something it isn't

[Kosta]

Someone remind me... how long does Bush sit reading to the children after being told of the second plane hitting the WTC?

I've only seen the trailer. The smirky "now watch this drive" line at his golf course press conference discussing war is sickening.

[Taur]

I think the main thing F-911 has in common with The Passion is all the reviews that start out with "I have not seen the movie, but"

The "Documentary" argument is also pretty fun to watch.

[NoMyths]

Someone remind me... how long does Bush sit reading to the children after being told of the second plane hitting the WTC?Around seven minutes, although he's listening to the children read.

[Kosta]

That's cool... you don't want to scare the children after all by standing up, excusing yourself and saying there is urgent business relatiing to national interests to attend to.

Good on him for putting literacy before terrorism.

[Sharpieman]

lol

[Mac Howard]

I expected to see more fireworks than this when I clicked on the link to this thread :)

I haven't see the film - in fact I'm not sure if it's been released here in Oz - but there is a considerable review on the opinion section of this weekend's The Australian newspaper. What is interesting about this review is that it's by a man called Christopher Hitchens who is described as a Left-wing British intellectual. Bearing in mind that probably puts him considerably to the left of most American liberals then it's a surprising review. Here's the first two paragraphs:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 ia a sinister excercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an excercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of dissenting bravery.

At no point does Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up a chance of a cheap sneer or jeer. He pitylessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so on.

Not what you'd expect from a left wing commentator, is it? Maybe it's the renowned lack of sense of humour of the extreme left. Perhaps it's Moore's failure to show compassion for those ill-treated by other tyrants (later he criticises Moore for ignoring the suffering of Iraqis under Saddam as well as the distraught mother above). I don't know. But it is a surprising condemnation of the film.

[Esquared1]

Funny, I have promised myself to never post my political view here, but I feel a rant starting.

Coming from a lerker in the Chicago Burbs. .

My girlfriend and I went to the 9:00 showing. The theater was 80% full. Interestingly, I viewed the movie in Deer Park, which is an upper middle class - wealthy area of the north burbs. For those familiar with the area, it's very close to Barrington and Long Grove.

Anyhow, I was expecting it to be 30% of capacity since it is a very new theater (411 did not even have the # listed yet) and I was guessing many of the locals are wealthy and conservative.

The sociologist in me tried to get a quick sample of the patrons:

15% 16-18 year old girls
5% 16-18 y/o boys
10% couples in the 20s
30% 30 y/o or older couples sympathetic to message
40% 30 y/o or older couples wanting to see movie in the hopes of discrediting the information in the work.

The latter of the above generally were in groups of four, where one male basically stated "well, point x the Moore made was incorrect, twisted, etc, and therefore, it discredits all his points.

The 30 y/o sympathizers had a "deer in the headlights look"

The kids came out very quietly. (May I add, very refreshing as a move patron annoyed at age groups general behavior)

I have many, many, many thoughts on the work. ( To borrow a phrase, but "I don't mean to get on a rant, but ") The primary one is that like Bush, Moore makes no apologies to his point of view. It comes down to your worldview. I view the world through the eyes of one who was raised in a conservative small town, who is a register Republican, yet went to college with the assumption that "I'm not here to learn facts, I'm here to experience life." Through this, I met many people from many walks of life, and actively gathered points of view across a politically active campus. Near the end of my time, I composed a weekly column, often criticizing the liberal factions on campus.

I did so knowing that in that environment, people thought of issues as if they existed in a vacuum. I believed, and still do, that the "liberals" that I criticized (and one who subsequently called me "a conservative asshole") looked a narrow facts to support their views. It is easy to simplify the problem as "constructs perpetuate the patriarchy", but making as such into some sort of public policy to better the human condition is impossible.

When I got out "in the real world", I discovered that I was a politically liberal. It's a label that I find as a compliment. The early 1900s, a philosopher with the last name of Cohen penned "Faith of a Liberal". He states that a liberal is not one who is to the left of all issues, but rather, one who gathers all relative facts to make the best decision at that time.

Starting on September 13th 2001, I thirsted for facts to help me put what happened in perspective. I looked through my old sociology and psychology books for guidance. I gathered all I could about the Middle East, the history of the region, and previous efforts to transform regions, such as Israel and Vietnam.

So far, I will say the following "I may be, and hope to be wrong about the following. If I am wrong, it is a good thing.

In short, through the leadership of Bush, our country continues down a self-destructive path. Not only my generation, but also my children not yet born will suffer.

What does this have to do with Moore, you may ask? It reminds us that seemingly “moral” and “upright” initiatives can have, at best, questionable underpinnings. Like terrorism, those who make policy do not live in a vacuum. They need to make decisions that not only solve terrorism (and I would argue that one never “solves” this, since you would infer that you have to solve "a cultural phenomena") but also maintain or improve other important factors that may not be in the public’s best interest.

In my opinion, Moore did a great job of drawing out emotion, especially since I am one who tries to leave emotion out. In the midst of that effort, logical leaps occur. Does this mean that I should throw out all the conclusions? I say no. Does it succinctly gather information that the mainstream media shy away from? Yes. Is this part of the big picture, and it does not definatively explain it? I say yes. Did it change my mind? No. Did I learn something? Yes.

Most of all, I believe the answer to the last question is most important.

[Taur]

Anybody have the current odds that the Fox News Channel will be reporting that Farenheit 9/11 is #1 at the box office this weekend?

I have $10 in my pocket that says they will not.

I predict that they will either not include F-911 in their tops at the box office because it "does not qualify" or will accidentally forget to include some of the smaller independent movie houses that are currently showing Farenheit 9/11.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Mac,

Hitchens is a 'leftist' in name only. From what I know, he was a rising political star in the mid-late 70's, but while...the fact he's a bit of a drunk caused him to crash and burn when many people thought he'd be a Prime Minister. He made his 'name' in the states by attacking Clinton for almost his whole Presidency and also kept his street cred by saying even though Bush's reasons for going to war was wrong, the ends justifies the means - or the lies for that matter. The guy can still write like hell, and probably wrote that piece half sloshed.

BTW, if you want the 'response' to Hitchens, here's a decent one I saw...

hxxp://hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1150

Now, on to my own F911 rant...

For what it's worth, I thought the movie was very good, not perfect, but great. From the beginning where you had the Congressional Black Caucus standing up against what they thought was black disinfrancisement in Florida (which, if you don't beleive it happened... gregpalast.com) against a Senate where not one man or woman, Repub or Democrat was willing to sign to it to the absolute pathetic way the Armed Forces recruit in the worst neighborhoods because ya' know Bobby and Sally who have new cars from Mummy and Daddy - not going to Iraq. The kid in the area with 30-40% unemployment. BTW, all you guys crowing about unemployment not being that high? When you're 26 weeks is done, you're not officially 'unemployed' anymore. I've heard estimates that the 'real' unemployment rate is anywhere from 7-9%. Google it if you want to.

Yeah, I'm a Liberal and damn proud of it. But, I also read (since I'm 21) about a time when sure, Republicans and Democrats disagreed but they also could debate without calling each other 'Unamerican' and 'Crooks.' The current people in office, Bush, DeLay, Rumsfield, Ashcroft, all of 'em have helped to further fracture this country into the 'Red's' and 'Blue's. From day one when Bush, depsite the fact he 'won' by one vote didn't appoint one Demcrat to his Cabinet to the fact they wanted to bomb Iraq from second one. I hope Kerry wins not just for the 300 milllion Americans, but for the other 5.7 billion or so lives on this planet.

Here's the thing. Every site I go to, I'm reading things about the theater being packed, another showing having to be put in for the overflow. Remember, it was only on 700-800 screens this week. Even with the Spidey juggernaut, F911 will probably add a couple hundred screens and probably only drop 30% next week. People will see this and it will gain good Word O' Mouth (84% 'fresh' rating on rottontomatoes.com). Pure econmics will make theater owners keep it in circulation. This will not quietly go away like some want it to. I may not agree with everything lock step with Moore, but hell, if he wants to face the fire, I'll let him. The film itself will finish somewhere around 65-85 million and might change a few minds.

But, hey, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Fritz]

have I ever mentioned that I wish moore would choke on a ham biscut?

[Noop]

People are getting worked up over a movie. Truth must hurt.... To bad because people are still going to vote Bush either way it goes... nothing short of him saying he is the antichrist will change their votes.

[NoMyths]

Nice post, Esquared.

[Samdari]

Does it succinctly gather information that the mainstream media shy away from? Yes.

This I question. Does Moore succinctly manufacture information that the mainstream media does not? Yes.

[panerd]

This I question. Does Moore succinctly manufacture information that the mainstream media does not? Yes.

So, in your opinion, how was the movie?

[Samdari]

So, in your opinion, how was the movie?

I refuse to hand the guy my money. I assure you, he has done enough lying in his films and interviews over the years to make me assume that everything he says is a lie. Every point he makes, even ones I would wholeheartedly agree with were someone else to say them, instantly become more questionable the moment he utters them. He is that qustionable a source of information.

I just hope that when it comes time for documentary awards, people remember that Moore himself refers to this film (indeed he also considered Bowling for Columbine this as well) "an op/ed piece."

If he wants to make op/ed films, more power to him. It just pisses me off to no end when he presents his opinions and editorializing as fact. They are not.

[panerd]

I refuse to hand the guy my money. I assure you, he has done enough lying in his films and interviews over the years to make me assume that everything he says is a lie. Every point he makes, even ones I would wholeheartedly agree with were someone else to say them, instantly become more questionable the moment he utters them. He is that qustionable a source of information.

I just hope that when it comes time for documentary awards, people remember that Moore himself refers to this film (indeed he also considered Bowling for Columbine this as well) "an op/ed piece."

If he wants to make op/ed films, more power to him. It just pisses me off to no end when he presents his opinions and editorializing as fact. They are not.

So you haven't seen it?

You see I hate Bill O' Reilly with a passion. (I actually hate the political Al Franken. ) If O'Reilly made a movie about Bush, I could make some assumptions about what it would be about. I also probably wouldn't pay money to go see it. But the third thing I wouldn't do is post in a thread about something I haven't seen. And don't tell me you wouldn't be all over any liberal from the board if they posted what you posted in the O'Reilly movie thread.

[panerd]

Dola:

The other thing I find funny is how the conservative element of the board usually has about 1000 arguements to refute the liberals on this board. (I will give them that a lot of them are legit) The only things they can say about F911 is that Moore didn't make a true documentary and he may have lied in the past. Why not refute any of the bold claims made about Bush in the film? Cat got your tounge?

[rexallllsc]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

[Chubby]

Dola:

The other thing I find funny is how the conservative element of the board usually has about 1000 arguements to refute the liberals on this board. (I will give them that a lot of them are legit) The only things they can say about F911 is that Moore didn't make a true documentary and he may have lied in the past. Why not refute any of the bold claims made about Bush in the film? Cat got your tounge?

because most of them haven't seen it and revert to their usual blind bashing of any negative to Bush.

"He puts down Bush? He's por-terrorist!!!" :rolleyes:

[Samdari]

So you haven't seen it?

You see I hate Bill O' Reilly with a passion. (I actually hate the political Al Franken. ) If O'Reilly made a movie about Bush, I could make some assumptions about what it would be about. I also probably wouldn't pay money to go see it. But the third thing I wouldn't do is post in a thread about something I haven't seen. And don't tell me you wouldn't be all over any liberal from the board if they posted what you posted in the O'Reilly movie thread.

You and panerd seem to be making the same mistake - assuming that because I hate Moore, I am a conservative, blinded by my love for Bush. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I align myself with neither party, thinking both are thieves interested only in attaining and keeping power, I actually agree with the basic premises of Moore's last two movies - that guns are too easy to come by, and that Bush has led the US astray in Iraq. That does not change the fact that Moore lies. I have seen the clip from Bowling in Columbine in which he presents it like he showed up that day, with no prior contact, and walks out with a gun. I have seen interviews in which Moore emphatically states that he had no prior contact with the bank. And I have seen the faxes sent between his production company and the bank setting up the piece weeks (or months, I forget) in advance.

As for not having seen the movie making any comments I might have irrelevant, answer this question. Why are you so willing to accept Moore's opinions (which he himself calls his films) that are based on secondhand accounts (he witnessed very fewm, if any of the events he comments on) but when anyone does so to criticize Moore, they are ridiculous. Moore can read on CNN.com that Bush went on vactation, he can accept it as fact and blast Bush in the film for doing so, and he is making a good point. Yet when anyone reads "X is shown in Moore's movie" they cannot accept that as fact?

[timmynausea]

You and panerd seem to be making the same mistake - assuming that because I hate Moore, I am a conservative, blinded by my love for Bush. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I align myself with neither party, thinking both are thieves interested only in attaining and keeping power, I actually agree with the basic premises of Moore's last two movies - that guns are too easy to come by, and that Bush has led the US astray in Iraq. That does not change the fact that Moore lies. I have seen the clip from Bowling in Columbine in which he presents it like he showed up that day, with no prior contact, and walks out with a gun. I have seen interviews in which Moore emphatically states that he had no prior contact with the bank. And I have seen the faxes sent between his production company and the bank setting up the piece weeks (or months, I forget) in advance.

As for not having seen the movie making any comments I might have irrelevant, answer this question. Why are you so willing to accept Moore's opinions (which he himself calls his films) that are based on secondhand accounts (he witnessed very fewm, if any of the events he comments on) but when anyone does so to criticize Moore, they are ridiculous. Moore can read on CNN.com that Bush went on vactation, he can accept it as fact and blast Bush in the film for doing so, and he is making a good point. Yet when anyone reads "X is shown in Moore's movie" they cannot accept that as fact?


Whoa. That's a good point. Actually, how can we believe Peter Jennings? I don't think he witnesses everything that happens that he reports. Jesus. It's all a bunch of bullshit secondhand accounts.
Ok. We're talking about the difference between criticizing a movie or any other piece of work you haven't seen and stating facts. You don't have to be a first hand witness to state a fact. You do have to watch a movie to present a valid criticism of it.

[Maple Leafs]

You do have to watch a movie to present a valid criticism of it.Huh?

So if Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Anne Coulter goes on Fox and says something stupid, only those who were watching at the time get to comment on it?

[Cuckoo]

Anybody have the current odds that the Fox News Channel will be reporting that Farenheit 9/11 is #1 at the box office this weekend?

I have $10 in my pocket that says they will not.

I predict that they will either not include F-911 in their tops at the box office because it "does not qualify" or will accidentally forget to include some of the smaller independent movie houses that are currently showing Farenheit 9/11.


FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123752,00.html)

I'll take cash or money order.

[Chubby]

Huh?

So if Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Anne Coulter goes on Fox and says something stupid, only those who were watching at the time get to comment on it?

There's a difference between a quote and a scene in a movie.

Take a sporting event. "Did you see the end of that game???" "I heard it was great" "It was nuts!" Now obviously, the person who saw the end of the game has a much better handle on how great the finish was compared to the person who only heard it was great.

[Cuckoo]

I just want to get things straight for a second. If a conservative doesn't see the movie out of an objection for Michael Moore, then they can't comment on the Moore, the film, its facts or lack thereof, or even the political underpinnings. If they do see the movie and give their opinion, they are idealogues who shouldn't be listened to anyway? Is that about the abridged version of this thread?

[Maple Leafs]

Take a sporting event. "Did you see the end of that game???" "I heard it was great" "It was nuts!" Now obviously, the person who saw the end of the game has a much better handle on how great the finish was compared to the person who only heard it was great.I suppose. But let's be honest: nobody is going into this film with an open-mind. I defy you to find very many on the left who are saying "gosh, I really thought I'd like it but after seeing it I changed my mind."

Both sides are playing the same game here. They're reading about the movie's claims (from the partisan news source of choice) and choosing to believe them or not based on how neatly that belief fits into their political worldview. Some people are actually going to see the movie, but that's only a formality. And of course more folks on the left are seeing it than on the right -- they're the intended audience, after all.

I think there are various healthy debates to be had here, about Moore in general, and about his work here in specific. But to claim that only those who spend the time and money to see the film are allowed a ticket to the debate -- when virtually every media source in the country has already covered its claims in great detail -- is just silly.

I haven't seen the film -- I hope to, but I haven't yet. But I don't need to see it to know that much of what Moore is showing is misleading to the edge of falsehood, any more than you need to be a regular Fox News viewer to criticize their bias.

[Cuckoo]

Well said Maple Leafs.

[Chubby]

I just want to get things straight for a second. If a conservative doesn't see the movie out of an objection for Michael Moore, then they can't comment on the Moore, the film, its facts or lack thereof, or even the political underpinnings. If they do see the movie and give their opinion, they are idealogues who shouldn't be listened to anyway? Is that about the abridged version of this thread?


No, there's nothing wrong with one side of the aisle saying such and such ideas are wrong. It's completely another to say a movie is full lof lies when you haven't seen it. If people want to bash Moore for his beliefs than fine, that's no different than the other 9000 political threads on here.

It's like saying "Lord of the Rings sucked. It was a terrible movie full of lies and deviated from the books" when you haven't seen it. Go see the movie, then bitch about it. It's a copout to say "I don't want to give Moore any of my money but I want to bitch about the movie anyway." You're not giving him money but you'll give him publicity? How can I comment on White CHicks when I haven't seen it? I can't.

[Chubby]

I suppose. But let's be honest: nobody is going into this film with an open-mind. I defy you to find very many on the left who are saying "gosh, I really thought I'd like it but after seeing it I changed my mind."

Both sides are playing the same game here. They're reading about the movie's claims (from the partisan news source of choice) and choosing to believe them or not based on how neatly that belief fits into their political worldview. Some people are actually going to see the movie, but that's only a formality. And of course more folks on the left are seeing it than on the right -- they're the intended audience, after all.

I think there are various healthy debates to be had here, about Moore in general, and about his work here in specific. But to claim that only those who spend the time and money to see the film are allowed a ticket to the debate -- when virtually every media source in the country has already covered its claims in great detail -- is just silly.

I haven't seen the film -- I hope to, but I haven't yet. But I don't need to see it to know that much of what Moore is showing is misleading to the edge of falsehood, any more than you need to be a regular Fox News viewer to criticize their bias.


The people who won't go see the movie but want to blast it and those that have seen it (I haven't seen it yet either, hence I haven't been praising it or putting it out) are wasting server resources. Once again it shows that some people will just blast the other side with nothing to back up their argument.

[Maple Leafs]

No, there's nothing wrong with one side of the aisle saying such and such ideas are wrong. It's completely another to say a movie is full lof lies when you haven't seen it. I guess we just agree to disagree here. Moore's biases (I won't call them "lies" because I don't believe Moore does lie) have been well-documented for weeks, by observers on all sides. I don't need to see his movie to know that it's outrageously biased any more than I need to see Shrek to know that it's animated.

[panerd]

Huh?

So if Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Anne Coulter goes on Fox and says something stupid, only those who were watching at the time get to comment on it?

This is a perfect example actually. Let's say that I heard O'Reilly put down the NEA on a segment of his show. You watched the whole show and realize the context of the statement he made. I come on here and blast O'Reilly for his anti-education viewpoints. Wouldn't you respond with what really happened? All I see is a group of people who have not seen the movie blasting it (because of something that they heard happened in Bolwing for Columbine) and telling a bunch of people who have seen the movie what is wrong with it. They can make any comments they want, but until they have actually seen the movie I will take them with a grain of salt.

EDIT: And when you see the movie your opinion is just as valid as any liberal who has seen the movie. Until then your opinion is not as valid.

[Maple Leafs]

How can I comment on White CHicks when I haven't seen it? I can't.If I told you that White Chicks was a movie starring Tom Cruise, was a Civil War costume drama, and ran for eight hours with three intermissions... would you simply accept it because I'd seen to the movie and you hadn't? Or would you refute it because you know enough about the film, even without seeing it, to know with some certainty that I was misrepresenting it?

[Chubby]

If I told you that White Chicks was a movie starring Tom Cruise, was a Civil War costume drama, and ran for eight hours with three intermissions... would you simply accept it because I'd seen to the movie and you hadn't? Or would you refute it because you know enough about the film, even without seeing it, to know with some certainty that I was misrepresenting it?

There's a difference between that example and people arguing about stuff that is supposed to be interpreted by the viewer. I don't see anyone saying Tom Cruise was in Moore's film.

[Maple Leafs]

This is a perfect example actually. Let's say that I heard O'Reilly put down the NEA on a segment of his show. You watched the whole show and realize the context of the statement he made. I come on here and blast O'Reilly for his anti-education viewpoints. Wouldn't you respond with what really happened?Sure, but there's a difference between countering or even correcting someone, and trying to shut them completely out of the discussion.

All I see is a group of people who have not seen the movie blasting it (because of something that they heard happened in Bolwing for Columbine) and telling a bunch of people who have seen the movie what is wrong with it. They can make any comments they want, but until they have actually seen the movie I will take them with a grain of salt.Which is fair enough, but that you seem to be ignoring the massive blitz of coverage, pro and con, that this movie has already had. I will grant you that someone on the right who had just emerged from a cave (insert punchline here) and had no knowledge at all about the film would be unfit to comment on it. But that's not the case here. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I don't need to see it to know, for example, that Moore engages in that ridiculous "send your kid to war" stunt with members of congress. I'm not sure I see where that's really in dispute.

Let me declare my bias here. I'm not a Moore fan, but that has less to do with his politics than with his style of work. I've worked in the field as a journalist, and I've made documentaries. I find people like Moore, regardless of political leanings, to be an embarassment. And it makes me sad when people seem to so eager to swallow what Moore and his ilk are spoonfeeding them. I'm always amazed in particular at how our "media savvy" youth are so incapable or unwilling to ask tough questions.

[clintl]

Let me declare my bias here. I'm not a Moore fan, but that has less to do with his politics than with his style of work.

Do you have the same problem with op-ed columnists? Moore himself says that this is what he is doing, not straight journalism. If he is doing satirical op-ed, which is what I think is the best description of what he does, I'm not sure what line he crosses that people like George Will, William Safire, Molly Ivins, Maureen Dowd, Richard Cohen, Robert Novak, and any other famous opinion columnist don't also cross when they need to do so to make their points.

[Kosta]

I am curious - run me through some of the "facts" that you object to in the movie.

[Maple Leafs]

Do you have the same problem with op-ed columnists? Moore himself says that this is what he is doing, not straight journalism.I'd agree with that, but Moore is playing both sides of the fence here. He claims that he's in the entertainment business, but he also claims that his movies are factual and accurate. And of course, he certainly hasn't got around to returning that best documentary Oscar.

Beyond that, I like to think that even the most opinionated columnist has certain responsibilities. Some acknowledgement of the other side is a nice start. Using quotes within their proper context is another. Avoiding misleading cheap shots is nice as well.

I'd agree with you that plenty of "journalists", if held up to scrutiny, would do just as poorly as Moore does. I suppose that's in some way unfair to him, but then again he's far more into self-promotion than most others so I'm tempted to say that it comes with the territory.

[Chubby]

I'd agree with that, but Moore is playing both sides of the fence here. He claims that he's in the entertainment business, but he also claims that his movies are factual and accurate. And of course, he certainly hasn't got around to returning that best documentary Oscar.



Where are his movies not factual and accurate?

The disagreement over his movies comes from the interpretation not from what is presented. You can take the Bush "Now watch this drive" any number of ways, it doesn't change the fact that it happened and he said that. The interpretation of that scene is different for different people tho.

[BishopMVP]

Where are his movies not factual and accurate?Try the Christopher Hitchens' piece - http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

And during the ask members of Congress stunt, he cut out at least one that said his son/nephew was going over there right now.

EDIT - It's usually not so much that he lies (although that happens occasionally), but that he only selects and edits to present one side of the argument (insert WMD joke) and then just expects everyone to agree with what he presents.

[Easy Mac]

Is anyone else amused that the film is being released by FAG?

And the estimates say it should make 22 million, about 4 more than white chicks.

[Maple Leafs]

Where are his movies not factual and accurate?It depends on how semantic you want to get. His movies are factual and accurate in the same way that the old "Man denies beating wife" headline is factual and accurate. Technically true perhaps, but still misleading and unfair.

[Chubby]

It depends on how semantic you want to get. His movies are factual and accurate in the same way that the old "Man denies beating wife" headline is factual and accurate. Technically true perhaps, but still misleading and unfair.

I must have missed the memo stating all movies must be fair. Particularly one's that take on political topics.

Bishop - And? Did he say not one person answered yes? If so then he lied, if not then he didn't.

How about this, all movies shall be run past political commitees to make sure they are "fair" :rolleyes: There would never be any political movies EVER because at least one side would have a problem with something that wasn't "fair" to their side.

Again, it comes down to interpretations. yes, Moore wants you to interepret what he presents in a certain way. That is different than presenting something as fact however.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Geez, ya post a perfectly good point by point response to Hitchen's piece and everyene ignores it. :-)

hxxp://hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1150

Also, another person on another forum said it best about Hitchens, who still can write his ass off....



Not long ago, I read a book of his literary reviews, which were very good.

But it's sad that back in the 70s, he was *the* leftist firebrand in Britain, the one people thought might become the ultimate leftist politician of his generation or even Prime Minister, and he now dines out (or should it be "drinks out"?) on being Capital Hill's Leftist Dancing Clown.



I didn't say that...if you want to flame him....go here -> hxxp://forums.delphiforums.com/newmedievalism

[rexallllsc]

I must have missed the memo stating all movies must be fair.

Aren't you the one that said it was factual and accurate?

[panerd]

As far as the house of representatives stunt goes I say it was right on! His film may be prodominently blasting Bush, but I took this part of the film as blasting all politicians. (Didn't Congress vote unimously, including Sen. Kerry, to go to war?) Look how quick they are to vote to send all of the soldiers over there, but I think he nailed them when he asked about their own kids. This particular part of the flim wasn't a slam on just Republicans, it was a slam on all of those crooks! So who cares if he didn't show the one politician? I am 99% certain Congress "selectivly edits" shit like that everyday!

And in my opinion I also thought Bush telling him to get a real job was funny and actually made Bush look good. I interpreted it as "I don't give a fuck what kind of documentary you are making I will do my job however I see fit".

[Chubby]

Aren't you the one that said it was factual and accurate?

No. I haven't seen it, someone said it wasn't and I said show me where. All people have "shown" is that they take the interpreted message as the "fact that is wrong".

[Chubby]

And in my opinion I also thought Bush telling him to get a real job was funny and actually made Bush look good. I interpreted it as "I don't give a fuck what kind of documentary you are making I will do my job however I see fit".
Maybe he could if the unemployment wasn't so high :p (now begins the debate over whether who don't have a job but don't collect unemployment are counted in the #s)

[rexallllsc]

Geez, ya post a perfectly good point by point response to Hitchen's piece and everyene ignores it. :-)

hxxp://hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1150

Also, another person on another forum said it best about Hitchens, who still can write his ass off....



I didn't say that...if you want to flame him....go here -> hxxp://forums.delphiforums.com/newmedievalism

In that article Chris Parry wrote that the Saudi's own Citibank. What a fool. One of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns 4% of stock in the company, but I'm almost certain that he's not even on their board.

Moore and his ilk love to twist the truth. No one who gives a shit about politics and follows it with any regularity gives this guy an ounce of respect. He's a joke.

[Chubby]

Moore and his ilk love to twist the truth. No one who gives a shit about politics and follows it with any regularity gives this guy an ounce of respect. He's a joke.


Umm the suckups on both sides of the aisle do that.

[rexallllsc]

No. I haven't seen it, someone said it wasn't and I said show me where. All people have "shown" is that they take the interpreted message as the "fact that is wrong".

I already posted one link.

This movie just makes Moore look like a whiner. "WHAT? WE DIDN'T SEND ENOUGH TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ?" (huh??)!!! "WILL YOU NOT SEND YOUR KIDS TO IRAQ?" Since when do parents make decisions for their adult-aged children?

Moore is a petty fool who can't even control himself. How does he expect anyone to talk him serious?

[rexallllsc]

Umm the suckups on both sides of the aisle do that.

So since politicians lie, it makes Moore's lies OK?

[Chubby]

I already posted one link.

This movie just makes Moore look like a whiner. "WHAT? WE DIDN'T SEND ENOUGH TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ?" (huh??)!!! "WILL YOU NOT SEND YOUR KIDS TO IRAQ?" Since when do parents make decisions for their adult-aged children?

Moore is a petty fool who can't even control himself. How does he expect anyone to talk him serious?

Considering I haven't seen the movie, I can't say whether what he states is explicitly in there. However, take that a lot of his "lies" are his interpretations -> "6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)" He divines? Oh really, then it must not be stated as fact but what he took from the facts presented.

That article is as politically slanted as Moore's movie is. How am I supposed to take Hitchens seriously? Sheesh, next you'll be posting anb O'Reilly article as the be-all end-all of the "truth"

[Chubby]

So since politicians lie, it makes Moore's lies OK?

He hasn't lied. You disagree with what Moore wants the film to suggest to people.

[NoMyths]

And during the ask members of Congress stunt, he cut out at least one that said his son/nephew was going over there right now.It was the Congressman's nephew who's in Iraq. The reason it probably wasn't included in the film (I doubt it was "cut") is because the question Moore was asking was about the sons of Congress members who went to war, not extended family members.

[Chubby]

Before I go to the store...

Here is the main hangup I think the people who think Moore is "lying" have.

Moore shows Bush talking about terrorism then says "Now watch this drive". Moore wants you think take out of that "Bush is an ass". People who like Bush disagree that Bush is an ass. So they think Moore lied however all he did was present something that happened and presented it. Just because you disagree with the message you took from the scene, doesn't mean the scene never occured.

[rexallllsc]

He hasn't lied. You disagree with what Moore wants the film to suggest to people.

LOL. Being purposely deceitful = lie.

Not to mention all of the untruths (=lies!) in Bowling for Columbine.

To deny that Moore is an outright liar is sad.

[rexallllsc]

Before I go to the store...

Here is the main hangup I think the people who think Moore is "lying" have.

Moore shows Bush talking about terrorism then says "Now watch this drive". Moore wants you think take out of that "Bush is an ass". People who like Bush disagree that Bush is an ass. So they think Moore lied however all he did was present something that happened and presented it. Just because you disagree with the message you took from the scene, doesn't mean the scene never occured.

Here's a novel concept:

People can dislike Bush AND Moore. I also am not a Republican, and I didn't vote for GW in the last election. Don't think this is some kind of Republicans and Neo-cons ganging up on poor Mikey Moore.

How's that?

[chinaski]

Try the Christopher Hitchens' piece - http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

And during the ask members of Congress stunt, he cut out at least one that said his son/nephew was going over there right now.



This is completely inaccurate. During the 'enlist your family members' bit Moore explicitly states there is one son of a senator currently enlisted and deployed in the Middle East. He is 100% correct. Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, has a son Brooks, 31, and he is a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division. He is the only relative of any senator or congressman serving our country.

[timmynausea]

LOL. Being purposely deceitful = lie.

Not to mention all of the untruths (=lies!) in Bowling for Columbine.

To deny that Moore is an outright liar is sad.

What are the lies?
Don't give me a ridiculous Hitchens article. That guy is completely insane. I saw him on tv a couple months ago literally raving about how "Mel Gibson is an ignorant peasant." He wrote an anti-Mother Theresa article, for God's sake.
I just want to know where these lies are.

[rexallllsc]

What are the lies?
Don't give me a ridiculous Hitchens article. That guy is completely insane. I saw him on tv a couple months ago literally raving about how "Mel Gibson is an ignorant peasant." He wrote an anti-Mother Theresa article, for God's sake.
I just want to know where these lies are.

As far as what...Bowling for Columbine? I don't really think I need to spell those out.

As far as F 9/11, he insinuates the Saudi's were let go by Bush w/o being questioned. Not only were they questioned, but it was Richard Clarke's move. He also questions the war, but then says we're not sending enough troops.

He can't have it both ways...again, no one should trust someone who can't even control themselves. You want to discredit Hitchens because of old articles? Well then, let's discredit Moore because of his numerous lies in BfC.

[rexallllsc]

This is completely inaccurate. During the 'enlist your family members' bit Moore explicitly states there is one son of a senator currently enlisted and deployed in the Middle East. He is 100% correct. Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, has a son Brooks, 31, and he is a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division. He is the only relative of any senator or congressman serving our country.

And? Should people FORCE their children to go into the military? Are those in the military FORCED to enter? I'm not quite sure what his point is.

[Chubby]

You want to discredit Hitchens because of old articles? Well then, let's discredit Moore because of his numerous lies in BfC.
Go nuts. Doesn't bother me.

Again, and I'll quote you "As far as F 9/11, he insinuates the Saudi's were let go by Bush w/o being questioned. Not only were they questioned, but it was Richard Clarke's move."

That's YOUR interpretation, not something he stated I presume. Point out something where he lies and it's different not something where it's "I don't agree with what I think his message was".

"LOL. Being purposely deceitful = lie." Where is he decieving anyone? Everything in the movie happened, no? Again, you interpretated his message and disagree, big difference.

[rexallllsc]

Go nuts. Doesn't bother me.

Again, and I'll quote you "As far as F 9/11, he insinuates the Saudi's were let go by Bush w/o being questioned. Not only were they questioned, but it was Richard Clarke's move."

That's YOUR interpretation, not something he stated I presume. Point out something where he lies and it's different not something where it's "I don't agree with what I think his message was".

"LOL. Being purposely deceitful = lie." Where is he decieving anyone? Everything in the movie happened, no? Again, you interpretated his message and disagree, big difference.

This is really pathetic. My interpretation? It's pretty obvious what he's insinuating. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, like Moore whines for the sake of whining.

Don't respond.

[Chubby]

This is really pathetic. My interpretation? It's pretty obvious what he's insinuating. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, like Moore whines for the sake of whining.

Don't respond.


:rolleyes:

kettle, pot, black.


Just so I'm sure, you think Moore is a crackpot and back that up with an article of "lies by Moore" written by a crackpot? Good show lol.

[chinaski]

And? Should people FORCE their children to go into the military? Are those in the military FORCED to enter? I'm not quite sure what his point is.

My response was to this inaccurate quote ..
And during the ask members of Congress stunt, he cut out at least one that said his son/nephew was going over there right now

From what i gathered from the piece Moore was after the 'shocked' response from Senators/Congressman from a question. The question, if this war is so necessary for the well being of America - would you be cool with your loved ones fighting in Iraq?

[cheetum]

the movie is very well made, and worth seeing. However, its important to take it for what it is: an editorial. an opinion. a "point" without a "counter-point". Moore is expressing to the audience his opinion, very elequently, and the way he can do it best, through film.

The finished product becomes something more powerful and convincing (to those who might buy into what Moore is trying to sell) then any newspaper editorial, liberal rantings and petitions, etc... It also does something successfully else which i think was also Moore's intention, an that is to piss off conservatives and create controversy.

Moore does make some good points in the film. Its too bad however, that he has used a few propoganda/media type tactics to distort his truth. I think I would have respected it more if he had left some of that out. Some examples were already mentioned above, like when he posed a question to a US (republican) congressman about how he would feel if he had family involved in the war, but left out. The answer would not have supported the viewpoint he's trying to convey, but rather then just leave the scene out altogether, he decides to use it to imply to his audience something different then the full truth. (After the movie was released the congressman explains to reporters he DOES have family in the war, and told this to moore, but this was left out of the film).

all in all its worth the price of a ticket. (although i would wait till the theaters are less crowded to see it). Moore is a talented filmmaker, no argument from me there. :)

[Chief Rum]

This is completely inaccurate. During the 'enlist your family members' bit Moore explicitly states there is one son of a senator currently enlisted and deployed in the Middle East. He is 100% correct. Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, has a son Brooks, 31, and he is a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division. He is the only relative of any senator or congressman serving our country.

Have you actually done the math on this? There are, what, 100,000 troops in Iraq? There are about 280,000,000 people in the U.S., I think.

Are you sure that one Congressman having one kid in Iraq isn't about right, percentage-wise? Are you saying that Congressmen should offer up even more than the average American?

CR

[chinaski]

Have you actually done the math on this? There are, what, 100,000 troops in Iraq? There are about 280,000,000 people in the U.S., I think.

Are you sure that one Congressman having one kid in Iraq isn't about right, percentage-wise? Are you saying that Congressmen should offer up even more than the average American?

CR

Im not saying anything. I was just dispelling the myth that Moore was cutting out senators responses who actually had relatives in iraq. Moore never did that.

[Chief Rum]

Im not saying anything. I was just dispelling the myth that Moore was cutting out senators responses who actually had relatives in iraq. Moore never did that.

So he showed the entire scene with that one senator, not changing a thing, in the movie? What about other senators? Did he show any clips of them?

Or did he pick what he thought would back his agenda up and let everything else go byt the way sie (especialyl anything that works against his beliefs)?

CR

[Buccaneer]

One thing that is bothering me. In the reviews (like Ebert), they point out the "7 minutes" pause after the WTC hit as being "most damning". Wasn't he (Bush) waiting for transportation and security to be arranged? So what was he supposed to do, panic and act all crazy in front of the school kids?

[NoMyths]

It's interesting to me that people would suggest that the only two options concerning the seven minute delay are to either: a) sit there, or b) panic and act all crazy. I'm sure that other options were available.

[Buccaneer]

Can't think of any?

[rexallllsc]

It's interesting to me that people would suggest that the only two options concerning the seven minute delay are to either: a) sit there, or b) panic and act all crazy. I'm sure that other options were available.

Many things could've been said:

"Mr. President, we're getting more info..."

"Mr. President, we're formulating a travel route right now. We'll let you know when we're ready."

At those really that implausible?

[Chubby]

Many things could've been said:

"Mr. President, we're getting more info..."

"Mr. President, we're formulating a travel route right now. We'll let you know when we're ready."

At those really that implausible?

One would think that the President of the United States would have a plan for everything. I'd be surprised to hear they didn't have a plan. I don't think the 7 minutes is that big of a deal. They at least have to get air force one ready which isn't instantaneous.

Tho the "we didn't want to scare the children" excuse is a little weak. What did they think was going to happen when they heard about the planes? The President leaving "because something came up" wouldn't have been a big deal IMO.

[Buccaneer]

He did leave because something came up. If the 7 minutes is not a big deal (which probably was how long it took to warm up the plane), then why act like it was in the movie? As far as having a plan for everything, they did. It was called "get the President to a secure area". They did that despite miscommunications and conflicting govt agencies acting like this was not one of those prepared events.

[Chubby]

He did leave because something came up. If the 7 minutes is not a big deal (which probably was how long it took to warm up the plane), then why act like it was in the movie? As far as having a plan for everything, they did. It was called "get the President to a secure area". They did that despite miscommunications and conflicting govt agencies acting like this was not one of those prepared events.

Because maybe Moore thinks it is a big deal while I don't?

[NoMyths]

Can't think of any?Sure: tell the teacher that something has come up, and then vamoose. As was pointed out, the photo op wasn't secret--if we were being attacked (as the President was told while he sat there), there existed the possibility that the President's location was a target. I'll just say this: I remember what my reaction was while 9/11 was unfolding. Watching the President's reaction for the first seven minutes was unsettling. And being as how he was informed of the first plane hitting before he even entered the classroom...it is sobering video.

[rexallllsc]

One would think that the President of the United States would have a plan for everything. I'd be surprised to hear they didn't have a plan. I don't think the 7 minutes is that big of a deal. They at least have to get air force one ready which isn't instantaneous.

Tho the "we didn't want to scare the children" excuse is a little weak. What did they think was going to happen when they heard about the planes? The President leaving "because something came up" wouldn't have been a big deal IMO.

Don't want to scare the children is a weak excuse, I agree. It's also probably really, really far from the truth.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I just thought of something in about five seconds...

"I'm sorry kids, but important President business came up. But tell you what, in a few weeks, you can all visit the White House." Boom, he shakes the teacher's hands and then asks whoever, 'What's going on?" It's sad I could figure that out in about five seconds, and Bush sat there for seven minutes.

[Chubby]

Don't want to scare the children is a weak excuse, I agree. It's also probably really, really far from the truth.

Which would be?

[rexallllsc]

I just thought of something in about five seconds...

"I'm sorry kids, but important President business came up. But tell you what, in a few weeks, you can all visit the White House." Boom, he shakes the teacher's hands and then asks whoever, 'What's going on?" It's sad I could figure that out in about five seconds, and Bush sat there for seven minutes.

What if they wanted to secure the surrounding area from potential snipers, etc?

[rexallllsc]

Which would be?

Honestly, I have no idea. Maybe secure the area from potential snipers

[stevew]

Is it possible that Bush was praying during this "7 minute interlude?" I havent had time to see the movie yet.

[NoMyths]

He didn't appear to be praying.

[Chubby]

Honestly, I have no idea. Maybe secure the area from potential snipers

So you're saying it's common practice for a president to walk into unsecured areas?

Somehow this and the "he was praying" don't exactly seem plausible to me. Being the religous person he is, why wouldn't Bush have wanted to pray with everyone in the school?

[Buccaneer]

I call BS, NoMyths. In the first 7 minutes, you were trying to determine what had happened and waiting to get more information because you had no fucking idea as what the hell was going on.

It's really pathetic all of these hindsighters (esp. Moore) are using this as a political haymaker. Except for Chubby, he doesn't think this is a big deal as I agree as well.

[NoMyths]

I call BS, NoMyths. In the first 7 minutes, you were trying to determine what had happened and waiting to get more information because you had no fucking idea as what the hell was going on.

It's really pathetic all of these hindsighters (esp. Moore) are using this as a political haymaker. Except for Chubby, he doesn't think this is a big deal as I agree as well.If I'm in that situation, there's no way in hell I'm sitting in a classroom listening to kids read at me. I'm on the phone with folks in the know figuring out if we're at war or not. That said, I don't think it's being treated as a political haymaker--I know I don't treat it as one. But it is troubling to watch.

[timmynausea]

To me the image of Bush sitting and looking terribly vulnerable and unsure for 7 minutes is only relevant when juxtaposed with the way he is usually marketed to us. This isn't W in the flight suit. This isn't the guy who says "bring 'em on" and "with us or against us." This isn't the "decisive" "leader" we always hear about. This is just a guy that doesn't know what to do. He just looks bewildered. It really does not fit with the way his image has always been presented to us.
It was one of a few different moments in the movie where I actually felt sorry for George Bush.

[chinaski]

I call BS, NoMyths. In the first 7 minutes, you were trying to determine what had happened and waiting to get more information because you had no fucking idea as what the hell was going on.

It's really pathetic all of these hindsighters (esp. Moore) are using this as a political haymaker. Except for Chubby, he doesn't think this is a big deal as I agree as well.

The 7 minutes is just the icing on the cake. before he even entered that school, the 1st plane had already hit and he was fully informed of this.

He is informed during the classroom reading that "The United States is under attack" and continues to sit there. Then once the reading is over, he stayed at the school for another 30 minutes.

i dont think its that big of deal, there are plenty of other more important things GW has mishandled.

[Maple Leafs]

I think the "seven minutes in the classroom" scene is one of two non-issue issues that are getting far too much attention (along with the "Bin Laden's relative flight"). If people wind up focusing on them instead of on the much more serious charges, I'd bet that Moore will end up regretting the focus he put on them.

[GrantDawg]

To me the image of Bush sitting and looking terribly vulnerable and unsure for 7 minutes is only relevant when juxtaposed with the way he is usually marketed to us. This isn't W in the flight suit. This isn't the guy who says "bring 'em on" and "with us or against us." This isn't the "decisive" "leader" we always hear about. This is just a guy that doesn't know what to do. He just looks bewildered. It really does not fit with the way his image has always been presented to us.
It was one of a few different moments in the movie where I actually felt sorry for George Bush.
Yup, it showed he was human. What a terrible thing for a President to be.

[MrBug708]

Don't be dissing satire. It is one of the great art forms. Quite a few of the greatest writers who ever lived were satirists - Swift, Voltaire, Dickens, Twain, Vonnegut. It has a honored tradition, and has made enormous contributions to literary and political discourse.

Dear god, Did you just put Moore in with that group? Yellow Journalism at best IMO

[Chubby]

I think the "seven minutes in the classroom" scene is one of two non-issue issues that are getting far too much attention (along with the "Bin Laden's relative flight"). If people wind up focusing on them instead of on the much more serious charges, I'd bet that Moore will end up regretting the focus he put on them.
I disagree on the Bin Laden family thing. It goes to how in bed Bush is with the Saudi's which IS important.

[Buccaneer]

I am recalling Pearl Harbor, the immediate reaction to that 9/11-like event and the hindsight blame on FDR for having the fleet bunched together.

[Maple Leafs]

I disagree on the Bin Laden family thing. It goes to how in bed Bush is with the Saudi's which IS important.Agreed that Bush/Saudi connection is an important issue. I just don't see a serious connection here.

Both the classroom and the flight controversies seem to be example of easy hindsight. If Bush had sprung up from the classroom and dashed out the door, his opponents would now be criticizing him for panicking, for being unable to remain calm and composed when the situation required it.

By the same token, what if the administration had refused to let Bin Laden's relatives out of the country? We'd be hearing how Bush and his friends think all Arabs are the same, how they assumed these innocent people were terrorists, etc.

[Chubby]

I am recalling Pearl Harbor, the immediate reaction to that 9/11-like event and the hindsight blame on FDR for having the fleet bunched together.

The rest of us on the board would respond but since you are the only one who was alive then... :p

[Buccaneer]

It goes to how in bed all politicians are with the Saudi's which IS important.
We have chosen our poison in relying so much on OPEC oil (as oppose to domestic sources). They will be our enemy but right now, they can't be. Israel has been and always will be our friend for political and social reasons, that can't change. But with so much attention by politicians being said about "The Economy", we have no short-term choice but to be in bed with the Saudis and OPEC producers. But covertly, how do you know we are not making a difference there?

[Archer219]

He also questions the war, but then says we're not sending enough troops.

He says we didn't and have not sent enough troops to Afghanistan. Remember that whole country with all the terrorists? We have more troops protecting the oil wells in Iraq than in Afghanistan. Mean while Afghanistan is falling under the same warlords that made Afghanistan a terrorist state in the first place.

If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about Bush and his "War on Terror", I don't know what will. Bush only cares about oil.

As to the whole Bush - Saudi royal family connection, there have been articles written on the subject in the Economist and the Atlantic Monthly. There is a connection, and the Saudi royals may be some of the most crooked people in the world.

On a side note, did anyone catch the Bush interview with Irish television? Brilliant stuff. I swear to God at one point the interview went something like this:

Reporter: A lot of the Irish people are angry over the attack on Iraq because they had no WMDs, which was your reason for attacking in the first place.

Bush: Look, the Iraqi government was given a time frame to disarm, and they didn't disarm, so we took action.

THEY DIDN'T DISARM THE WEAPONS THEY DIDN'T HAVE!!!!! :rolleyes: I'd rather not have a president who can't come up with a logical arguement to back up his actions. Hell, say you were going in for Iraqi freedom (which is bullshit as well), or just come out and say you wanted control of one of the world's top producers of oil.


"Bush said, 'There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again.'

For once, we agree."

[Chubby]

Agreed that Bush/Saudi connection is an important issue. I just don't see a serious connection here.

Both the classroom and the flight controversies seem to be example of easy hindsight. If Bush had sprung up from the classroom and dashed out the door, his opponents would now be criticizing him for panicking, for being unable to remain calm and composed when the situation required it.

By the same token, what if the administration had refused to let Bin Laden's relatives out of the country? We'd be hearing how Bush and his friends think all Arabs are the same, how they assumed these innocent people were terrorists, etc.

No we wouldn't, nice try tho.

It furthers the fact that Bush sleeping with the Saudis drives decisions in this country.

[Buccaneer]

It's funny, Chubby because the whole world would substitute Israel instead of Saudis in your statement.

[Chubby]

We have chosen our poison in relying so much on OPEC oil (as oppose to domestic sources). They will be our enemy but right now, they can't be. Israel has been and always will be our friend for political and social reasons, that can't change. But with so much attention by politicians being said about "The Economy", we have no short-term choice but to be in bed with the Saudis and OPEC producers. But covertly, how do you know we are not making a difference there?
As others have said, it has been documented that the Bush dfanily is heavily connected to the Saudi royal family.

[Chubby]

It's funny, Chubby because the whole world would substitute Israel instead of Saudis in your statement.
That would be the USA, not just the Bush family.

[John Galt]

As far as what...Bowling for Columbine? I don't really think I need to spell those out.


Since you have posted this in every Moore thread and every time I have posted links showing that the lies alleged are almost entirely wrong, I think maybe you should document the "alleged" lies of Moore. TroyF has posted links for lies with a Fred Barnes article (which is unimpressive because it is really just he said/he said), but there seem to be some damning things in Moore's book (although I haven't researched those). The lies in BfC, however, are really not lies at all (with the now corrected error in the Horton TV ad). To see Moore's documentation for the alleged lies, go to:

hxxp://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

[clintl]

Dear god, Did you just put Moore in with that group? Yellow Journalism at best IMO

Of course I don't think he's as good as they were. But I think satire is what he is doing.

[rexallllsc]

So you're saying it's common practice for a president to walk into unsecured areas?

Somehow this and the "he was praying" don't exactly seem plausible to me. Being the religous person he is, why wouldn't Bush have wanted to pray with everyone in the school?

That's what I said, maybe they were securing the area.

[Chubby]

That's what I said, maybe they were securing the area.

So again, is it common practice for a president to walk into unsecured areas? The area should have been secured before he got there, try again.

[rexallllsc]

Since you have posted this in every Moore thread and every time I have posted links showing that the lies alleged are almost entirely wrong, I think maybe you should document the "alleged" lies of Moore. TroyF has posted links for lies with a Fred Barnes article (which is unimpressive because it is really just he said/he said), but there seem to be some damning things in Moore's book (although I haven't researched those). The lies in BfC, however, are really not lies at all (with the now corrected error in the Horton TV ad). To see Moore's documentation for the alleged lies, go to:

hxxp://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Sorry, I choose to believe those that have a shred of credibility, not someone who can't even control himself.

[Chubby]

Sorry, I choose to believe those that have a shred of credibility, not someone who can't even control himself.

Like Hitchens right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. wait.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[AENeuman]

Just saw it. Watching it here in SF i now know what watching "the passion" in colorado springs must have been like....

I think the that-dumb-bush stuff was cute, but not really telling, good music though.

I also did not like his making the Iraq war personal and unique. All war is always ugly, sad, devastating. I just finished an ernie pyle book on his time in italy and france in ww2 and the soldiers were making the same complaints and telling of the same senseless loss of life.

The best thing, I think, about the movie was the poor fighting the billionaire's war. it's a dirty little secret that the US gives citizenship to those that join, and depends on poor communities.

Finally, I think he was a bit washy on the notion of using fear. He is very right about this threat level and patriot act stuff. But on one hand he shows how the US missed important chatter and memos pre-9/11, and on another he claims that after 9/11 chatter and warnings have been made up (exaggerated) and should be dismissed as propaganda.

[Driftwood]

This is beyond stupid. When you`re the President of the most powerful country in the history of the world and you`ve just been attacked by suicidal zealots, I hope the first 7 minutes go exactly as you`ve imagined. And God forbid your face show a little of the shock I`m sure you`d be feeling...

Back to topic, I haven`t seen the movie yet but I plan on entering the movie with an open mind. Although I personally believe Bush and his religious zealots are destroying the country while stealing the bread from my family`s table, I`m going to open my heart for 2 hours and allow myself to be open to a new perspective. I`m personally excited to have my belief system challenged!

[MrBug708]

Religious Zealots. LOL!

Stephen was called a Zealot for dying. Something tells me none of Bush's "religious zealot's" have any plans on dying anytime soon.

[BishopMVP]

This is completely inaccurate. During the 'enlist your family members' bit Moore explicitly states there is one son of a senator currently enlisted and deployed in the Middle East. He is 100% correct. Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, has a son Brooks, 31, and he is a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division. He is the only relative of any senator or congressman serving our country.If you're going to attack my statement as completely inaccurate, you might want to choose your words better. Son/Daughter and relative are two different issues. It also appears that Moore is referring only to Senators, not Reps (but don't expect him to make that clear.) And knowing this and Moore's past work, it is quite possible that there are others who are serving but not deployed in the ME. He isn't lying, he is just choosing his words very carefully and then trying to give a different impression.

JG - What about the get a gun at the bank stunt? It was arranged weeks in advance to allow for the necessary backround checks and all to be completed, but in the film he either explicitly states or strongly implies that anyone can just walk in off the street and get a gun.

I love how some of the Moore supporters in this thread attack Hitchens as unhinged, not worthy of reading and mock him while simultaneously attacking those who would do so to Moore. Since y'all don't want to address him, I'll sum up some of the criticism from him and others.

When it comes to the Saudi part of the film, apart from never really getting into why the Saudis are so bad (and I've been saying they are for years, but there are probably a lot of people going to this film who don't know why) he also attacks Bush for allowing members of the bin Laden family to leave the US (singling them out because of the name even if they've never done anything seriously wrong) when it was actually Richard Clarke, held up later as someone who opposes Bush's actions, who has said he was the one who authorized the flights. Then he seems to imply that, because of the close personal relationship, the Saudis have too much control over our actions, (a charge that doesn't really seem to hold up. Witness our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, over Saudi objections, that we've now moved our troops out of the country and have started putting more pressure on them to crack down) without ever presenting situations where they this control manifests itself. In the end, if as Moore claims it really was all about oil, then no one would oppose it more than the Saudis who would be most threatened and lose the most from the #2 nation getting its full capabilities back online. This is just one of the many contradictions Moore has.

Then the 7 minutes part. Other than authorizing a jet to shoot down an aircraft there isn't anything that the President does in that situation, the system in place and qualified professionals and specialists are in charge of the response, so I'm not sure what people wanted him to do. Meanwhile, I'm also certain that if he had been seen getting angry and/or saying something along the lines of "Let's find out who did this and kill them." that would also be used to support the assertion that he's just an irresponsible cowboy with bloodlust.

Then we get to the Iraq war. His footage of Saddam-era Iraq is a joke. Everyone was happy and smiling until we came and overthrew Saddam (ignore every poll taken which show that overwhelming majorities support our removal of said tyrant.) He even goes so far as to say that Iraq under Saddam had never killed or even threatened an American. Um, Gulf War I, the assassination attempt on Bush I, giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?

Another part of the film that Moore spends time on is Homeland Security. He attacks the Administration for not doing enough pre-9/11, then for issuing too many threats after 9/11. He makes fun of the often ridiculous airport searches, then claims they should do more.

One claim repeated over and over is that we didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. While he also complains about the soldiers there dying needlessly. And he never mentions his opposition to the Afghanistan conflict.

These multiple contradictions just show that, even when Moore makes no attempt to show the other side of the story, he still can't present something that actually makes a coherent, well-thought out point. He consistently makes fun of what is being done, often from both sides, but never presents an alternative plan of action. Someone who I was talking to today about the film said she was glad that someone had the "courage to make the film." I nearly threw up in my mouth. Then I see that it has also been said in this thread. Give me a break, the guy is making millions of dollars and there is no threat of being imprisoned or injured because of what he is doing. If that's courage I guess we should be applauding the executives at GM who made the decision to lay off the workers in Roger & Me.

[timmynausea]

If you're going to attack my statement as completely inaccurate, you might want to choose your words better. Son/Daughter and relative are two different issues.

JG - What about the get a gun at the bank stunt? It was arranged weeks in advance to allow for the necessary backround checks and all to be completed, but in the film he either explicitly states or strongly implies that anyone can just walk in off the street and get a gun.

I love how some of the Moore supporters in this thread attack Hitchens as unhinged, not worthy of reading and mock him while simultaneously attacking those who would do so to Moore. Since y'all don't want to address him, I'll sum up some of the criticism from him and others.

When it comes to the Saudi part of the film, apart from never really getting into why the Saudis are so bad (and I've been saying they are for years, but there are probably a lot of people going to this film who don't know why) he also attacks Bush for allowing members of the bin Laden family to leave the US (singling them out because of the name even if they've never done anything seriously wrong) when it was actually Richard Clarke, held up later as someone who opposes Bush's actions, who has said he was the one who authorized the flights. Then he seems to imply that, because of the close personal relationship, the Saudis have too much control over our actions, (a charge that doesn't really seem to hold up. Witness our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, over Saudi objections, that we've now moved our troops out of the country and have started putting more pressure on them to crack down) without ever presenting situations where they this control manifests itself. In the end, if as Moore claims it really was all about oil, then no one would oppose it more than the Saudis who would be most threatened and lose the most from the #2 nation getting its full capabilities back online. This is just one of the many contradictions Moore has.

Then the 7 minutes part. Other than authorizing a jet to shoot down an aircraft there isn't anything that the President does in that situation, the system in place and qualified professionals and specialists are in charge of the response, so I'm not sure what people wanted him to do. Meanwhile, I'm also certain that if he had been seen getting angry and/or saying something along the lines of "Let's find out who did this and kill them." that would also be used to support the assertion that he's just an irresponsible cowboy with bloodlust.

Then we get to the Iraq war. His footage of Saddam-era Iraq is a joke. Everyone was happy and smiling until we came and overthrew Saddam (ignore every poll taken which show that overwhelming majorities support our removal of said tyrant.) He even goes so far as to say that Iraq under Saddam had never killed or even threatened an American. Um, Gulf War I, the assassination attempt on Bush I, giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?

Another part of the film that Moore spends time on is Homeland Security. He attacks the Administration for not doing enough pre-9/11, then for issuing too many threats after 9/11. He makes fun of the often ridiculous airport searches, then claims they should do more.

One claim repeated over and over is that we didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. While he also complains about the soldiers there dying needlessly. And he never mentions his opposition to the Afghanistan conflict.

These multiple contradictions just show that, even when Moore makes no attempt to show the other side of the story, he still can't present something that actually makes a coherent, well-thought out point. He consistently makes fun of what is being done, often from both sides, but never presents an alternative plan of action. Someone who I was talking to today about the film said she was glad that someone had the "courage to make the film." I nearly threw up in my mouth. Then I see that it has also been said in this thread. Give me a break, the guy is making millions of dollars and there is no threat of being imprisoned or injured because of what he is doing. If that's courage I guess we should be applauding the executives at GM who made the decision to lay off the workers in Roger & Me.

As far as the gun in the bank thing: it doesn't discredit any of the major points made in the film. So maybe they had contacted the bank ahead of time. It is basically a minor moment, just irony. I guess that makes it fair for Bill O'Reilly to compare Michael Moore to nazi propagandaists? (Which he has done repeatedly over the past couple weeks.) I don't think this discredits his work (and particularly facts presented about Bush) much or really at all.

If you'd seen the film you'd know that the pre-war Iraq footage you're speaking of was about 30 seconds long. Certainly no more than 45. I actually thought it was interesting as I'd only heard about rape rooms and torture chambers over there. Seeing Iraqis going through every day things made them more real to me as people basically just like me. (I guess it's one of those things you know, but seeing it on film makes you really realize.) So in no way was he trying to sum up the history of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. He was just showing a little footage from March 2003, the time immediately before the bombs started going off.

As the article that tears the Hitchens article to shreds says, Mike worded things terribly when he suggested no Iraqi had harmed/threatened us. I noticed that at the theatre. I assume, like the forementioned article, that he meant since 9/11. Even then, it's an iffy statement at best. Perhaps he meant the people of Iraq as opposed to Saddam? In any case, this is certainly a valid criticism.

As far as not sending enough troops... This was meant strictly in terms of Afghanistan. It is absolutely clear, if you watch the film, that he thinks no troops should've been sent to Iraq, and that he agrees with Richard Clarke that more troops should've been sent to Afghanistan.

A lot of people have likewise suggested that Richard Clarke is a "saint" in the film which is ironic with the fact that Clarke has taken responsibility for authorizing the Saudi flights. I didn't get the impression that Clarke was considered a saint. He was in the movie for about 30 seconds as I recall, and aside from the more troops in Afghanistan part he is basically not a factor.

I took all the Homeland Security footage to mean that we are not safer at all and that Homeland Security is being mishandled. We are giving up rights (patriot act and flight searches) and yet we are surely not safer. (One officer is in charge of guarding the entire Oregon coast, and it's a part time shift.)

I don't really get the "other side of the story" stuff. Nobody would suggest that Bush should take some time to clearly explain Kerry's view point. I don't see why it's any different in this case. The movie at times does contradict itself, as did Bowling for Columbine. A lot of people praised Bowling for Columbine for asking more questions than it answered, and I think Fahrneheit 9/11 is about the same. It stimulates the viewer. How can it be propaganda if it doesn't tell you exactly what to think?

[Sharpieman]

I finally saw this film today. Let me first say that I think anyone who has an IQ that is better than a chimps can understand this is a propaganda film. Moore is a liberal film maker who makes propaganda films, and no one can really dispute that. You can attack Moore all you want and say that he leaves out things etc etc. And you will be correct, it is a biased film, very biased.

I knew that a lot of the facts were slanted in his favor to make a better film. However, two facts jumped out at me which are true until someone harks in and says otherwise. First, the US sent 11,000 troops into Afganistan, more police are in New York than that. How many troops have we sent to Iraq? This is something that pisses me off a lot. How the fuck can you send only 11,000 troops to a place that is harboring the man behind the 9/11 attacks? This is the enemy and everyone knows it and everyone knows that he was a bigger threat than Saddam. Absolute bullshit.

Second, as I stated this is a propaganda film. But wait, it can't be any worse than the bullshit the Bush admin shits out. Everyone attacks Moore for his inaccuracy. What about the Bush admin inaccuracy? The only difference between the inaccuracy and propaganda between the Bush admin and the Moore films is the fact that the Bush admin's accuracy has cost civilian and military lifes.

My opinion of the Bush admin hasn't changed since seeing this film. I already knew how the Bush admin has botched the war on terror and how they started a war that really no reasons except for the fact that Saddam was a tyrant and killed his own people. Can you really name any Middle East country that doesn't kill its own people?

Those who agree this war feel that Saddam had WMD, he was allies with Al-Qaeda and that he was a humans right violator. WMD: Iran has 'em. Big deal. Allies with Al-Qaeda: Not true whatsoever, although there may have been talks with Al-Qaeda by senior Iraqi officals there is no evidence that they collaborated on attacks. Did Saddam "harbor" Al-Qaeda? Maybe, but I can name a couple other Middle East countries that we havent attacked that still "harbor" Al-Qaeda. Humans right violator: Please, show me a country in the Middle East that ISNT a significant humans right violator.

My rant is over...OK now those who disagree or got mad reading what I wrote can attack me.

[BishopMVP]

As far as the gun in the bank thing: it doesn't discredit any of the major points made in the film. So maybe they had contacted the bank ahead of time. It is basically a minor moment, just irony. I guess that makes it fair for Bill O'Reilly to compare Michael Moore to nazi propagandaists? (Which he has done repeatedly over the past couple weeks.) I don't think this discredits his work (and particularly facts presented about Bush) much or really at all.He asked for a part of BfC that was fabricated, I provided one. Using this to imply that I agree with calling Moore a Nazi propagandist or that everything in the film was wrong is quite a leap of logic.As far as not sending enough troops... This was meant strictly in terms of Afghanistan. It is absolutely clear, if you watch the film, that he thinks no troops should've been sent to Iraq, and that he agrees with Richard Clarke that more troops should've been sent to Afghanistan.Unless he has changed his mind, he disagreed with sending any troops to Afghanistan.I took all the Homeland Security footage to mean that we are not safer at all and that Homeland Security is being mishandled. We are giving up rights (patriot act and flight searches) and yet we are surely not safer. (One officer is in charge of guarding the entire Oregon coast, and it's a part time shift.)So then what the hell are his alternate plans? Giving the cops more power and money seems to be the closest he gets to an answer.I knew that a lot of the facts were slanted in his favor to make a better film. However, two facts jumped out at me which are true until someone harks in and says otherwise. First, the US sent 11,000 troops into Afganistan, more police are in New York than that. How many troops have we sent to Iraq? This is something that pisses me off a lot. How the fuck can you send only 11,000 troops to a place that is harboring the man behind the 9/11 attacks? This is the enemy and everyone knows it and everyone knows that he was a bigger threat than Saddam. Absolute bullshit.In the 80's, when the Soviets rolled in with tens of thousands of men, we funded basically every Afghan of any significance. That isn't a place you can go in with a lot of people and overpower the Afghanis, so we allied with a large number of them instead. Maybe it was a mistake, but considering that is a small enough number as to be easily doubled or tripled, I'm guessing the Pentagon had some very good reasons not to send in more. Whether we then pulled out many of the elite troops and special forces to use in Iraq is a different issue.Everyone attacks Moore for his inaccuracy. What about the Bush admin inaccuracy?I'm kind of shocked that Moore didn't spend more time on this. I figured holes in the administration's rationale for the war would make up the majority of the film. I also love the defense of "The other side does it too, how dare they point it out."Can you really name any Middle East country that doesn't kill its own people?Israel, Turkey, Iraq come the closest.Those who agree this war feel that Saddam had WMD, he was allies with Al-Qaeda and that he was a humans right violator. WMD: Iran has 'em. Big deal.So we should a)not attack a country because there are others doing equally bad or worse things b)attack Iran or c)bitch about whatever choice Bush ends up making? (I hope we find out soon on whether b or c works for you) And I find your flippant attitude about one of the, if not the foremost state sponsor of terrorism acquiring WMD disturbing.Allies with Al-Qaeda: Not true whatsoever, although there may have been talks with Al-Qaeda by senior Iraqi officals there is no evidence that they collaborated on attacks. Did Saddam "harbor" Al-Qaeda? Maybe, but I can name a couple other Middle East countries that we havent attacked that still "harbor" Al-Qaeda. Humans right violator: Please, show me a country in the Middle East that ISNT a significant humans right violator.This is such a weak defense I can't believe people consistently trot it out. The, yes Saddam was bad, but so is _____, so we shouldn't have done anything about Saddam. To use an analogy, if 10 people commit murders and the authorities only lock up 1, you would complain about not getting the other 9, not that they chose the wrong one. Either Saddam was a problem and we would have had to deal with him at some point or he wasn't. If he was why does it matter if he came before the others (even ignoring that there was no better option on the table, other than possibly Iran, due to NK getting nukes and the fact that invading SA would turn into a true jihad.)

[Sharpieman]

Iran and Syria are bigger state sponsors of terrorism than Iraq. Iran has WMD, we know they do, they, like Iraq, have used them (Gulf War). And even if Iraq had WMD, it doesnt mean that they were planning to attack the US, there is no credible evidence stating that Iraq or Saddam planned to attack the US. I understand that Saddam had to be taken out of power at some point. But Why do it now, when we were already waging war in Afganistan? It probably would have been a better plan to send more troops into Afganistan, try to capture or kill that bastard Bin Laden and not spread our military thin. Smells like opportunism to me.

[cuervo72]

have I ever mentioned that I wish moore would choke on a ham biscut?

And get off of my damned YIM!

[John Galt]

JG - What about the get a gun at the bank stunt? It was arranged weeks in advance to allow for the necessary backround checks and all to be completed, but in the film he either explicitly states or strongly implies that anyone can just walk in off the street and get a gun.


This is Moore's explanation from the link I posted earlier (you'll have to go to the website to use the hyperlinks that provide documentation for what he is saying):

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country – "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).

[cuervo72]

The 7 minutes is just the icing on the cake. before he even entered that school, the 1st plane had already hit and he was fully informed of this.

He is informed during the classroom reading that "The United States is under attack" and continues to sit there. Then once the reading is over, he stayed at the school for another 30 minutes.

i dont think its that big of deal, there are plenty of other more important things GW has mishandled.

But the thing is, when this happened nobody (at least not in the media, certainly) immediately knew this was an attack. Sure, it's easy to recognize that in hindsight. But it was completely unexpected, and I remember watching NBC news soon after the first plane hit - they didn't know what was going on. The plane could have been just an amateur pilot who strayed off course and happened to run into a building. They didn't know. Not until the second plane hit.

[HornedFrog Purple]

You know what is interesting is Moore left out footage he has of abuse of Iraqi prisoners he received from an independent reporter in October of last year. I wonder why.

[HornedFrog Purple]

dola it's Fahrenheit!

[Daimyo]

In a situation where you may have to make a decision to shoot down a civilian aircraft, 7 minutes seems like a long time to me... if it was me I'd want to spend as many of them as possible talking to the appropriate advisors trying to figure out at least what was going on.

[rexallllsc]

So again, is it common practice for a president to walk into unsecured areas? The area should have been secured before he got there, try again.

You're right. If it's secure at one time, it's always secure. Nothing changes. Ever.

[rexallllsc]

Like Hitchens right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. wait.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So you admit Moore is just as crazy? Cool.

[Joe]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html

[Mac Howard]

I think you guys misinterpret Hitchens' criticism. The major force behind it is not that Moore is necessarily wrong but that his arguments are sloppy and lack intellectual integrity.

Hitchens is not a nouveau Republican as the so called refutation says. His left-wing credentials are impeccable. But he is an intellectual, a purist, a perfectionist. He believes that if you distort the facts, omit relevant information, make cheap shots then you're unsure of your argument and you lose credibility. When he likens F9/11 to works by Riefenstahl etc he's not saying that Moore's views are fascist but that he's using the techniques used by Nazi propagandists - ie simplistic, populist, biased arguments that feed the prejudices of the intended audience.

I also think there's a great deal of professional envy in his position. Hitchens has made a number of documentaries which have never been popular or widely distributed. They're intelligent films with complex arguments, demand a lot from the audience and do not dodge the difficult issues (in his documentary of Mother Teresa he didn't so much criticise her but didn't shy away from saying that she was one of the last vestiges of imperial condescension).

In his mind, Moore has made a sloppy film and received great acclaim/notoriety for it when Hitchens' more sophisticated efforts have gone unnoticed. I think that's a major cause of his criticism. But that doesn't take anything from its relevance or accuracy. The motives may be impure but that doesn't mean the argument is invalid.

[33sherman]

Hitchens is a snobby, humorless, self-professed drunk who get offs on his own sense of being 'contrarian.' Moore's movie is not the masterpiece that some are calling it, but like usual Hitchens is way off the mark. He's one of those guys who walks around all day(drinking--his admission, not my allegation, see Vanity Fair) whispering "I am an intellectual" to himself.

I never really cared for Michael Moore--but it seems to me the most damaging moments in F911 came right out of Bush and Rumsfeld's mouths, right? Like those alleged satellite pictures of WMDs that with the chemical depots circled in yellow? So what did they turn out to be? Wood sheds? Moore's not spinning that, he's just presenting it for what it is--a bald lie by the President of The United States right to the faces of all us Americans(note: and yes, Clinton was a lying rapist, too, who deserved to be impeached, but a lot more people are dying for this particular lie.)

[SFL Cat]

Iran and Syria are bigger state sponsors of terrorism than Iraq.

As recently as two or three months, we issued the same sanctions against Syria we initially issued against Iraq. So I guess if history follows, Syria is next.


Iran has WMD, we know they do, they, like Iraq, have used them (Gulf War).

As far as I remember, no one accused the Iranians of using WMD in the Iraq-Iran war, and only Saddam has used the agents in his own country (to put down Kurd uprisings -- one of the reasons the no-fly zones were established). Gee, you sound so certain that Iran has WMD...almost as sure as people who are "in-the-know" thought (including every nation on the U.N. security council) Iraq possessed them. Maybe you should share your sources with U.S. intelligence.

And even if Iraq had WMD, it doesnt mean that they were planning to attack the US, there is no credible evidence stating that Iraq or Saddam planned to attack the US. I understand that Saddam had to be taken out of power at some point. But Why do it now, when we were already waging war in Afganistan? Probably the same reason General George Patton wanted the U.S. to go ahead and roll into Russia after defeating Germany -- he knew we'd be fighting our good "allies" the Commies some day and he figured 'why wait', especially when we had the manpower and equipment in place to do the job then and there. You can criticize Bush's timing all you want. Personally, I would have preferred to finish business in Afghanistan too before pushing into Iraq. Hell, I wish Bush's daddy had done the job right in Gulf War I. But (gasp) EVEN YOU admit Saddam had to go, and it is painfully obvious that with most of our NATO allies getting nice little bribes and kickbacks thanks to oil-for-food, we were the ones who would be doing it...either now or sometime in the future.

It probably would have been a better plan to send more troops into Afghanistan, try to capture or kill that bastard Bin Laden and not spread our military thin. Smells like opportunism to me. Yes, Mr. Monday morning QB. I'm sure every lib on the board could have done a much better job planning our military operations. Oh wait, if it had been up to the libs, we'd still be negotiating with the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden to us. In fairness, I'm sure, even the libs would have taken a tough stance by now, ...economic sanctions against Afganistan would definitely be in place by this point if they ran the show.

[BishopMVP]

This is Moore's explanation from the link I posted earlier (you'll have to go to the website to use the hyperlinks that provide documentation for what he is saying)If you parse that statement (and as a lawyer you should be good at it) you'll see he chooses his words carefully and doesn't ever actually deny that it was set up in advance by members of his staff. A second, perhaps clearer outright lie is that we gave money to the Taliban. Moore himself has admitted it was for humanitarian aid, but neglects to mention it went through the UN and international NGO's, not the Taliban itself.Iran has WMD, we know they do, they, like Iraq, have used them (Gulf War).You seem awfully sure of that. While I certainly think they do too, there is nowhere near as much evidence in Iran's case as there was for Iraq before we invaded, so how can you be so certain? And for one reason we invaded Iraq before Iran, in addition to already have multiple UN Sanctions being continually violated, was that most of the Iranian people are very pro-American, and hopefully given a prospering somewhat Democratic country next door they would finally have the impetus to overthrow the Ayatollahs. Of course, the way Iran has been acting lately (moving divisions near the border, multiple Iranian army members being killed/captured in Iraq, taking Brits hostage) we may have enough for a casus belli fairly soon.

[Mac Howard]

>Hitchens is a snobby, humorless, self-professed drunk who get offs on his own sense of being 'contrarian.'

As an answer to the accusation that the debate lacks intellectual integrity, that is not impressive.

>I never really cared for Michael Moore.................................

Then you and Hitchens would seem to be like-minded. You both have some sympathy with what Moore says but are not too keen on the way he sets about communicating his message.

[John Galt]

If you parse that statement (and as a lawyer you should be good at it) you'll see he chooses his words carefully and doesn't ever actually deny that it was set up in advance by members of his staff. A second, perhaps clearer outright lie is that we gave money to the Taliban. Moore himself has admitted it was for humanitarian aid, but neglects to mention it went through the UN and international NGO's, not the Taliban itself.

Talk about seeing only what you want to see. This is from the above quote that I posted:

"When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account."

That says NOTHING was done other than phoning to make sure that filming was okay (something any filmmaker would do to avoid wasting time and money).

As for the Taliban aid, you can call it whatever you want, but the US government aided the Taliban government. NGO's were ultimately responsible for distributing the aid, but it went to the government first. And Moore didn't have to "admit" it was humanitarian aid, because that is what it clearly was under the budget. That is still aid to the government (and there is a wealth of literature about how humanitarian aid is used by oppressive governments for legitimacy and to hide the lack of social services provided by the government).

[Mac Howard]

>And Moore didn't have to "admit" it was humanitarian aid, because that is what it clearly was under the budget.

You're not that naive, John.

[clintl]

FWIW, Iran has democratic institutions that, if freed from the grip of the Ayatollahs, could serve as a model for the region. Yes, they have been a sponsor of terrorism. Yes, there is concern that they might have a WMD program. But they also have some things going on internally that are worth nurturing where we have the opportunity to do so, and we have mostly been blowing that opportunity.

[33sherman]

>Hitchens is a snobby, humorless, self-professed drunk who get offs on his own sense of being 'contrarian.'

As an answer to the accusation that the debate lacks intellectual integrity, that is not impressive.

How does the term 'intellectual integrity' apply to footage of satellite photos shown to the UN and the American public? How does it apply to Bush and Rumsfeld's own words? Are you saying that only 'intellectuals' such as yourself should be allowed to discuss the war? Or have an opinion?

>Then you and Hitchens would seem to be like-minded. You both have some sympathy with what Moore says but are not too keen on the way he sets about communicating his message.

Nope, Hitchens is a war apololgist--an uppity, cranky bombastic war apologist--and I have been opposed the invasion since day one(not that my opinion matters for anything).

[Mac Howard]

>Nope, Hitchens is a war apololgist--an uppity, cranky bombastic war apologist

Not a lot of improvement there :D

[Bonegavel]

You don't see Limbaugh or Franken trying to be fair and balanced. Even though they claim to be fair and balanced,
I don't know about Franken, but Limbaugh has never claimed to be "fair and balanced." He simply claims to be "balance" vs. the main stream liberal press.

[BishopMVP]

"When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account."

That says NOTHING was done other than phoning to make sure that filming was okay (something any filmmaker would do to avoid wasting time and money).It says nothing was done out of the ordinary. Phoning ahead and beginning the process of opening the CD/requesting the bank have the gun on the premises (the bank stored them at a warehouse miles away) both could easily fall under that definition.As for the Taliban aid, you can call it whatever you want, but the US government aided the Taliban government. NGO's were ultimately responsible for distributing the aid, but it went to the government first.No, it didn't. It went directly to wheat, food commodities and food security programs distributed through UN agencies, bypassing the Taliban.