PDA

View Full Version : A Comment abot Michael Moore MOVIES



Super_Duper85
06-19-2004, 08:34 AM
I first want to say that I am fed up with most politicians in general. They are mostly wealthy people who have gotten their positions due to entitlement (ie: wealth) more than anything. Having said that I tend to lean more towards the liberal side, even though I hate the party distinctions. It is sad that someone who views both parties having valid points is considered a "fence sitter" and it is better to be straight ticket and wrong as opposed to going with the "other side" if they are right in a certain instance. I truly believe that most people who bash Michael Moore have never seen his movies. While he makes his political position known publicly (that he dislikes Bush), I think Bowling for Columbine is a thought-provoking movie. Anyone who has seen the movie knows that Moore's ultimate question is why do Americans seem to be more violent than people in other countries. He does not blame one political party or the other. In fact he mentions Clinton bombing Kosovo when speaking to Marilyn Manson about the causes of violence in our country. The sad truth (in which Moore does not implicitly state in the movie) is that politicians and others make big bucks by selling weapons that kill people. Guns were not created to hunt animals, they were made with the intent to be used in wars, etc. It is kind of disturbing if one thinks about it. One thing that bothers me is that people take minor details of his movies and blow them way out of context. An example in Bowling is when Michael signs up for the bank account in Michigan to get a FREE gun. People harp on the fact that he edits the movie to show himself walking out of the bank with a gun, when in reality that is not bank policy. Most people that harp on this scene most likely have never seen the movie. The point Moore is trying to make is that if one signs up for a bank account, one is able to get a gun as opposed to free checking or something (it is inconsequncial whether or not they take the gun from the bank or it is sent to them). After all, Michael is SHOWN FILLING OUT DOCUMENTATION STATING A BACKGROUND CHECK MUST BE DONE BEFORE HE CAN TAKE A GUN. Nobody seems to mention that when talking about the "contraversial" editing. One thing that validates the movie to me is that Moore does not take a stand one way or the other against gun control. After all, those that do some homework would know that he is a member or the NRA and has won sharpshooter trophies as a child (remember he is from Michigan). Although the scene at the end when he questions Charlton Heston seems a little staged, it does reveal that Heston really put no thought at all into why he would go lead NRA rallies in cities days after tragedies (Columbine and in the citiy where a first grader was shot and killed) occured. The reason is never stated but is clear: MONEY. Lets face it, guns are big business. I know a thread was originally started about F/911, but that movie has yet to come out, so I don't want to get into a premature debate about the movie's relevance. However, I thought Bowling was excellent and thought provoking. I actually want to see Roger and Me next because I have yet to see it. Also, keep in mind that all forms of media edit things to get a slant. 60 minutes is the worst. Also, our own government does the same thing whether they are DEM or REP. If it were up to Rumsfeld, the American people would have never known about the atrocities that a "small few" of our military displayed against the Iraqi prisoners. Although this type of thing is not surprising to me due to the horrid nature of war, it shows that our leaders don't want to show us what war is really like. They would rather us think it is glorious, like a John Wayne movie. I don't want this to come across as a rant, but I would rather debate with people who have actually seen Michael Moore movies. Even my wife, who is a republican, acknowledged that Bowling was not that bad, and she was hesitant to see it because of what she heard about Morre's pilitical views. The movies Moore makes are important if only to debate them. However, people need to amke sure that they see the movie first before commenting and know that there is really no such thing as Truth with a caiptal "T." There is always a slant on something because every one has a difference of opinion, which is what makes this country great.

Section126
06-19-2004, 11:05 AM
The problem is that about 70% of Bowling for Columbine was staged and was a flat out lie.

I bet you didn't even know that he spliced 3 different speeches of Charlton Heston to come up with the speech he displayed in the movie.

He also staged completely the "Gun for a checking account" bit.

Michael Moore is a fraud and trying to "learn" anything from his movies is like trying to learn about space travel by watching Star Wars.

Phinzone
06-19-2004, 12:55 PM
The problem is that about 70% of Bowling for Columbine was staged and was a flat out lie.

I bet you didn't even know that he spliced 3 different speeches of Charlton Heston to come up with the speech he displayed in the movie.

He also staged completely the "Gun for a checking account" bit.

Michael Moore is a fraud and trying to "learn" anything from his movies is like trying to learn about space travel by watching Star Wars.


ROFLMAO! Oh man, that was good "learn about space travel by watching Star Wars"...man, that's an instant classic. You get mad props on that!

Super_Duper85
06-19-2004, 05:00 PM
WOW! I just did some research on the NET (for what that's worth). I didn't realize he spliced Heston's speech. I'm not a person who considered his work TRUTH, but it looks like he fabricated a lot. It's unfortunate that we can't seem to trust anybody anymore. I still found the movie enjoyable anyway. I agree his work should not be called a documentary. It should be considered a movie.

P4E
06-19-2004, 06:09 PM
Michael Moore is a hypocrite and a complete ***. It's ironic that Moore undermines his own arguments through his misrepresentations and misleading edits. He's caused people to recognize him (correctly) as a knee-jerk, smug, liberal gasbag, hence his arguments are well-received by lefties and aren't likely to get an audience at all among middle of the road types or conservatives. He has made himself a caricature of irrational, self-absorbed self-indulgence. That said, there are legitimate points to be made about the excesses of gun manufacturers, some gun owners and some NRA policies. If he were less driven by ego and attitude, he might be effective in presenting those points. Just my $.02 :)

Speaking of self-absorbed... I can't talk about guns without saying this: My great grandfather was President of the NRA (the title later held by Heston) from 1902 to 1907:

http://genforum.genealogy.com/cgi-bin/pageload.cgi?bird::spencer::6657.html

Yeah, -- I am THE complete genealogy geek.:goof:

CirclingWagons
06-19-2004, 07:39 PM
ROFLMAO! Oh man, that was good "learn about space travel by watching Star Wars"...man, that's an instant classic. You get mad props on that!
true, twas a funny analogy :lol:

CirclingWagons
06-19-2004, 07:40 PM
Michael Moore is a hypocrite and a complete ***. It's ironic that Moore undermines his own arguments through his misrepresentations and misleading edits. He's caused people to recognize him (correctly) as a knee-jerk, smug, liberal gasbag, hence his arguments are well-received by lefties and aren't likely to get an audience at all among middle of the road types or conservatives. He has made himself a caricature of irrational, self-absorbed self-indulgence. That said, there are legitimate points to be made about the excesses of gun manufacturers, some gun owners and some NRA policies. If he were less driven by ego and attitude, he might be effective in presenting those points. Just my $.02 :)

Speaking of self-absorbed... I can't talk about guns without saying this: My great grandfather was President of the NRA (the title later held by Heston) from 1902 to 1907:

http://genforum.genealogy.com/cgi-bin/pageload.cgi?bird::spencer::6657.html

Yeah, -- I am THE complete genealogy geek.:goof:
damn...interesting stuff :cool:

JPhinfan86
06-20-2004, 08:47 AM
The problem is that about 70% of Bowling for Columbine was staged and was a flat out lie.

I bet you didn't even know that he spliced 3 different speeches of Charlton Heston to come up with the speech he displayed in the movie.

He also staged completely the "Gun for a checking account" bit.

Michael Moore is a fraud and trying to "learn" anything from his movies is like trying to learn about space travel by watching Star Wars.

You're completely right about that. When I rented this I honestly expected and informed, insightful and educational documentary. I ended up shutting it off after about 15 minutes. That whole Gun for checking account thing was one of the dumbest most obvious bits i've ever seen.

burton87
06-20-2004, 05:26 PM
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com

Fin_Fanatic
06-21-2004, 12:20 PM
nice webpage....... i'd rather see the movie, Michael Moore Hates America. looks more funny and is probably 10 times more truthful

PhinPhan1227
06-21-2004, 12:33 PM
Ray Bradbury is going to sue Moore if he doesn't change the title of Farenheit 9/11...so you can now add "plagiarist" to the list of Moores titles.

P4E
06-22-2004, 02:08 AM
See English Socialist Christopher Hitchens tear that jackass Michael Moore a new azzhole:

Hitchens: Michael Moore is an ignorant, bloviated, gasbag. (http://slate.msn.com//id/2102723/)

Mr.Murder
06-26-2004, 01:58 PM
Hitchens is the gasbag, and not even a citizen. His points are so well taken by you?

Bradybury has titled works named after established titles of enlightenment authors, he has a lot of room to talk. Who burned books like his stories? We only burn Dixie Chicks albulms.


Hypocrites calling Moore a hypocrite, WTG!


The fact that firearms were so readily available was the issue in that movie, and Heston was out of place to go to combine more so than Moore. The nerve, it would be like making an Al Qaeda press stop in NYC a week after 9-11-01.

Where Moore made a mistake was in going over the top, just like Heston did. Fight fire with fire was the point he made about the issue. He is not entirely correct though, second amendment rights are something to never remove. In its day hunting was a part of the American diet, not just recreation. In their day Americans had access to firearms the same caliber and quality as issue army ordinance because citizens should be the ones in trust of government.

Still he has a right to say, free speech zones notwithstanding. Bush is too coward to even have people who have citizen's differing opinions come within 2,500 feet of him. He is a joke to American dialogue.

P4E
06-26-2004, 03:41 PM
Hitchens is the gasbag, and not even a citizen. His points are so well taken by you?

Ummm.... WTF is that supposed to mean?

Could you expand on that a little further? I'm intrigued by your perceptions about my thoughts regarding the validity of ideas expressed by anyone who is "not even a citizen", to use your phrase. Tell me more. And please be specific. Rambling off in another direction or on a tangent won't be counted. So... what is the substance and logical underpinning of what you said, above?

PhinPhan1227
06-26-2004, 04:39 PM
Hitchens is the gasbag, and not even a citizen. His points are so well taken by you?

Bradybury has titled works named after established titles of enlightenment authors, he has a lot of room to talk. Who burned books like his stories? We only burn Dixie Chicks albulms.

.


Bottom line, Farneheit 451 is Bradbury's signature work. Moore stealing the title is not only immoral, it's illegal.

Mr.Murder
06-27-2004, 04:09 PM
Immoral is using public domain phrases? If anything Moore did him a service using a similar title to increases sales of his book. And he has three other stories titled after classics author's titles word for word. He is just using the Moore comments to fuel his sales and stir up free publicity.

Hitchens is not a citizen and is putting his words into an area to influence public opinion. Reagan the fakeriot deregulated media so outsiders could own outlets and look how long it took to have 2 wars with Iraq that used a complicit media to ignore conflicting Bush family fiscal interests...

Hitchens is a drunk, that he can sit almost upright is an achievement for him on Crossfire. You are free to say what you feel, but giving a person prominance to the point his words reflect upon our policy dicatates a vested interest in Democracy as a citizen and he does not warrant this and the distinction is not made from the start.


Benedict Hitchens is a great spin man but the relevance of his words is taken for granted, hold the light of speculation and fact analysis to his words and they'll burn under the looking glass...

P4E
06-27-2004, 05:39 PM
Hitchens is not a citizen and is putting his words into an area to influence public opinion. Reagan the fakeriot deregulated media so outsiders could own outlets and look how long it took to have 2 wars with Iraq that used a complicit media to ignore conflicting Bush family fiscal interests...

Hitchens is a drunk, that he can sit almost upright is an achievement for him on Crossfire. You are free to say what you feel, but giving a person prominance to the point his words reflect upon our policy dicatates a vested interest in Democracy as a citizen and he does not warrant this and the distinction is not made from the start.


Benedict Hitchens is a great spin man but the relevance of his words is taken for granted, hold the light of speculation and fact analysis to his words and they'll burn under the looking glass...Yeah, -- I didn't think you could answer my question or respond to Hitchens with an iota of substance.

Your argument that he is a foreigner and that, accordingly, his comments ought be dismissed reeks of the most pathetic hypocrisy. It fails to address the question at hand and serves only as a grasping, resourceless effort on your part to dismiss that with which you disagree. Nice try; no substance.

So you fail to respond substantively with that argument, and then you move on to accusations of drunkenness. Let's assume that's 100% correct. It still leaves you failing to respond to the substance of his ideas. And that's interesting, because a drunken Hitchens makes far more sense than whatever the balance of your unintelligible, illogical paragraph went on to say. I invite you or anyone else to decipher this blather:

You are free to say what you feel, but giving a person prominance to the point his words reflect upon our policy dicatates a vested interest in Democracy as a citizen and he does not warrant this and the distinction is not made from the start. I'll assume you're still trying to find a rule that says no one should have to listen to something with which you disagree. That's precious. Again, you fail to address the points Hitchens has made about what a standardless lame-*** your friend Mr. Moore is. And if accusations of drunkenness are to be taken as legitimate and substantive in political debate, might I have a few swigs of what you've been drinking?

In keeping with your general flailing and lack of substance, your final paragraph is utterly meaningless. Anyone could insert any opponent's name in that sentence and declare their ideas to be wrongful. Unfortunately, you offer no substance or refutation whatsoever.

You are a kneejerk liberal. It is what you choose to embrace. That is fine. But I'd simply suggest that you take a better look at the basis of your arguments. You buy into the crap Michael Moore presents wholesale and without reason, and you seem to think that calling those you disagree with foreigners and drunks suffices to debunk and refute them. Come back and talk after you've brushed up on your standards of logic and empiricism. Until then, your posts aren't worthy of reading or response. We've all seen how biased and shallow your thinking and arguments are. You know, critical rationalism was actually a liberal idea in the renaissance, -- you should look into it. In the meantime, enjoy your kicking, flailing, reactionary liberalism.

Mr.Murder
06-28-2004, 12:59 AM
Not worthy of response, the why retort? Hitchens has rubbed off on you...

Mr.Murder
06-28-2004, 01:03 AM
Ohhhhh using the title you posted for the link headline and referring it to Hitchens lacks merit? Thanks for reminding yourself of the same approach you use. Hitchens level of hypocrisy is full throttle in your efforts.

Mr.Murder
06-28-2004, 03:11 AM
http://slate.msn.com//id/2102723/
"One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring." (Hitchens opening sentence is boring to the point of redundnacy and thus ironic).

"How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. " ( Hitchens claims to be a liberal, using long words does not a liberal make, Chris. And your attempts to sound like a cheerleader for the left puts you in the league of Bush the Yale cheerleader. Lots of noise, no substance...)

"But the meetings themselves were so that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight." (Well if he was at meetings and using words like "mind-numbing and lugubrious" no wonder the debate fizzled in a frenzy of style over substance as linguistic complexities drowned thoughts from the shallows of introductory formalities that usually start finding middle ground to which some cohesive agreement can occur upon.)




"Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. " (Hitchens gives interviews, why are Libruls so unappreciative of his royal presence?)


"There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins."(Tripped over when hostile fire and bombing scenes occur? Very much staged) "With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl." (Ohhh list filmaker of Nazi idolatry lore, Hitchens how many racially inferior types were parts of Moore's presentation? If he is so much like Nazis why does he feature minority policitians and soldiers?)

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. " (Ditto Hitchens...)


To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. (Same thing could be said of the 43rd pResident's term.)

'Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.' (Ohhh asking why we send soldiers to war is frivolous, as Hitchens opines...so the Marine quoted before Congress and whom most of the lawmakers leaving session avoid is a coward for having served and noting that he will not be sent to "kill poor people". Hitchens strikes out twice in the above statement.)


"In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified." ( Well there's an idea that the law is above partisdanship and if he's guilty such would be made apparent and has since, the CIA files from the days we helped him is enough to imprison him. Some people have an idea that the law we uphold should be applied in all instances and had such been done in correct fashion our entire efforts would be bun laden instead of the war for oil based on lies that we are now in.) Hitchens tries to distract the issue that iraq's war is wrong for the war on terror by shifting to a different argument while ignoring the same critical standard to Moore's comments over Afghans to the present Iraq 'qWagmire'.

"Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion." (Really Hitchens needs to tell Richard CLarke that whose lifetime has been one fighting terror.Only someone who has been on a bottle a while would still make such statements after Against all Enemies was published).

"Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group." (Actually it does including Bush Sr's close financial ties with the family while Osama was on his bombing runs and may have been a way that he was avoid the CIA verification process since Bush Sr was recieivng CIA debriefings as an ex-President which is a rare occurrence albeit common for him).



"2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States." (A fact and a good bit of our foreign aid goes to areas Saudis are trying to buy out energy reserves at, case in point- the 43 million loan to the taliban and their trip to the Bush family in Texas.)

"3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests." (see #2)


4) "The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape." (This has been verified by former and some current Generals including Anthony Zinni and Wes Clark).

5) "The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American." ( Afghans were the coalition of the billing? What a surprise...)



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.)' (Hitchens has yet to view the film? Many critics have. Perhaps he will tell that to the parents of a dead soldier who recieved the Bronze Star in combat in Iraq.)

"It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. " (Bush kissed that ring and put it above him I saw it myself Hitchens can kiss my *** on that point, Bush Sr is well documented in his visits to the Saudis also.)
"As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) " (So it's just Hitchen's accent or he has a private line to Tony Blair? What was that about foreigners getting media access to influence opinion and me being wrong?)

"Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. " (Those forces were in Afghanistan not Oilraq, and Moore mentions such in his movie, questioning why fewer troops were in the Afghan operation that NYC has police.)



'And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return.' (The Taliban is back in control of many areas there, or warlords who are dope kings instead of a legitimate govenrment, it is a terror haven once again, only a drunk would act like things are going well there.)

"I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal." ( There is welding being done on pipe segments shown in the movie when Moore mentions the Taliban visit to the Bush ranch before 9-11, so Hitchens is wrong overall on this matter and perhaps on the timeline as well the work was undated and may have been a part of the pre 9-11 Taliban aid money for a Unocal pipeline).


"He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11." (So does a former FBI investigator who notes the 'interviews' were not done by procedure whatsoever...)

"I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. " ( And the original 9-11 commission chair to succeed Kissinger is now distanceing self from Bush , perhaps his wife's death into the Pentagon weighed heavier than loyalty to a money grubbing spoiled rich kid. The final report will rpobably mention more of this as some in the commission have mentioned.)

"And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment." (Clarke said others made that call above him in the Executive cabinet with the confirmation coming from other INTEL agencies. If this was wrong why did the White House clear his statement in the book? The story itself does not directly quote Clarke ,the woman who mentioned it made that quote and Hitcens repeated it in fact the commission said that quote would have been false to be said and that the entire situtation needs to be reviewed . So Hitchens' word holds as law if a staffer at entry level says it is so.)


And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies." (Hitchens did not fully read the story he cites it notes that it is still under review, does now directly quote Clarke saying that either.)



"A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims." (Hitchens own story is based on this noted above, but it sounds good to him, if he says it on the radio 'twould be his finest hour but not factually correct...)

'President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off. ' (Hitchens has a poster of Tony Blair above his typewriter from the sounds of it. The largest landslide defeat for a party at Blair's parliament by the way. No rain on hitcen's parade though, his focus remains dry ina hurricane of drunken indulgence of factual misrepresentation.Bush was not relaxing, he was planning a war as hitchens said, one round of golf at a time...)

"The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm." ( Those guys never ended briefings to do so that we have recorded of note.bin laden determined to strike in the US= par for the course.)

"More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. " (Interesting , no it is pathetic.)

"Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. " (OOhhhh so this war in Oilraq is about 9-11 after all. Hitcens decides to make such an analogy and try to place the criticism of flawed Bush actions into nonexistent Moore hypotheticals... since WHEN is emergency response on that day equal to any of the actions afterwards which require logistical strategic support?)
"The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box." ( Ashcroft knew SOMETHING was coming so did Condie Rice for her calling Willie Brown and telling him not to fly, but hitchens goes after a seperate straw man entirely and wishes to bring down one argument with the other... try again.)


I"'ll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)" (Rumsfeld and Saddam were good buddies, so was Cheney, he mentions what happened in that, enough info on Saddam atrocities is out there but the people who enabled such call shots here still...) By the way there was a ton of footage taken from oilraq, not all of their country was into torture or terror as Hitchens would have you believe, in fact it was a mojority who lived peacefully...


"In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. " None of whom Hitcens has the journalistic authority to name or interview...

"After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally." (After a war how did Saddam know that? Could it be other arabs offered him to do so for their distrust of a white vested with Sauids whose country had in it the Holy City?)

?) "Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country" (Clinton responded with sufficient force to send a message, Hitchens is so desperate to explain Bush he praised Clinton... the firing on aircraft took none down did it? Despite deliberate no-fly zone tightening in hopes of starting a Tonkin-like downing to justify a full war, Wolfowitz pushed such a plan at one time...)

"And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war" (He was in northern no-fly zones, why did Bush let him stay there and basically protect his base? To justify a war when he had no Saddam links?)


"On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)" ( Saddam could get supplies from a no-fly zone? And Kurds share the Syria border? Straw man myths abound in Hitchen's work.More Chalabi documents to build a straw argument...)


'Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings." (Hitchens has misquoted the counterterror czar and we should take this as fact? the "unmistakable 'warnings'" would be Tenet telling him something was going to happen to the point Ashcroft quit flying publicly and the August 6 PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to attack the United States".)

"The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. " (Same for Hitchens' entire topic...)
"Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad?" (Becuase bin ladens wanted Bush out of Saudi Arabia and he played their hand like Osama said they would...)


"The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly."(Their market share is bigger than ever with Oilraq burning BTW...) "They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds?" (Kissinger wants all of the Islamic cultures dead, see also the work with Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war days and the Kurdish revolts...) "This would be a strange position for a purported radical."(Hitchens and strange positions are congruent in his twisted logic.) "Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist." (Hitchens forgets that classic repoublicanism is isolationism...)


"I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer."


(Hitchens assumes that Oilraq was a Moore policy point from the start, he has overlooked the criticism Moore states in the film in interviews noting the troop deployment to Afghanistan was slow and not sufficient numbers to secure success in total elimination of the bin laden element...) Hitchens will volunteer instead, his ego can fill a thousand decorated uniforms in its own right we had enough soldiers for the Afghan mission but decided to go into a war of distraction. Hitchens misquotes Clarke but ignores the crux of his work noting that Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror and its goals.
"Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything." (That's why he spurned the agent acceptance speech at the acadamey awards ,hugh Hitch?) An ignoble attempt to slander Moore's courage is a weak way to make an argument and perhaps hitchens doesn't know the same people Moore does in his other takes on the hijacking results which he tries to plant as slurs on the victims to guide anger at Moore. And the Pennsylvania flight covered a lot of ground to be a direct impact it appears to have been a shootdown like the passenger on board who said "there's a plane outside window we'll be okay now..."


"Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet." (Well Hitch best get ready because he can do so and it will help push his film after ads are banned in just over a month...) "Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film." (That has failed already...) "How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another?" (Smart enough to call their bluff...) "By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation" (Actually a lot of responsible parents and adults went, not a bunch of wild-eyed liberals. it was a diverse and wonderful crowd in every sense of the word. Taking a relative wheelchair bound and seeing soldiers lose limbs who are facing rehab hit hard on the perspective...)


"However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of." (Mike will have enough money to start his own program or perhaps Bill Moyers will host you both during public TV donation drives...Hitchens has misstated facts already claiming a direct quote attributed to Clarke which was not in the story he linked...)

Correction, June 22, 2004: This piece originally referred to terrorist attacks by Abu Nidal's group on the Munich and Rome airports. The 1985 attacks occurred at the Rome and Vienna airports. (Return to the corrected sentence.) Wow he was wrong in print, not a first...

Highest grossing documentary in history, let history pass bye or be part of it!

Super_Duper85
06-28-2004, 07:16 AM
One of the things that disturbed me about the film was that the Bin Laden family was allowed to leave the country the day of the attakcs. That is against all CIA protocl (I think). If you or I committed a murder, they would detai our family for questioning, even if they were better people that the relative that committed the murder. Think about all the potential information we might have gotten had they been detainedI also love the footage that has Powell Rumsfeld and Bush in 2001 saying that Iraq and Sadam were not a threat to us and then all of the sudeen they have WMD and we are in "imminent" danger. I guess Moor fabricated all of those scenes. the only thing I ask is if you are going to bash Moore at least see the film and decide for yourself. It is lame to debate a topic with people who haven't seen it. It's funny how many can bash Moore, but in the same breath laud Rush. Talk about messed up...

ohall
06-28-2004, 07:39 AM
One of the things that disturbed me about the film was that the Bin Laden family was allowed to leave the country the day of the attakcs. That is against all CIA protocl (I think). If you or I committed a murder, they would detai our family for questioning, even if they were better people that the relative that committed the murder. Think about all the potential information we might have gotten had they been detainedI also love the footage that has Powell Rumsfeld and Bush in 2001 saying that Iraq and Sadam were not a threat to us and then all of the sudeen they have WMD and we are in "imminent" danger. I guess Moor fabricated all of those scenes. the only thing I ask is if you are going to bash Moore at least see the film and decide for yourself. It is lame to debate a topic with people who haven't seen it. It's funny how many can bash Moore, but in the same breath laud Rush. Talk about messed up...

Simply not true. They left on 9.13.01. Although MM never said they left on 9.11.01 or after he most certainly gave the impression they left the very same day of the attacks. The liar lied, I'm shocked!

Let it not bother you any longer. They left as soon as anyone else was able to board a plane in the US. Most of them were even interviewed, and it has been determined none of those family members had info to give us on any terrorist ties to UBL. UBL has a large family, I believe some where int he #'s like 300.

If you like the footage of Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush talking about how Saddam was not a THREAT you'd love to see the footage of Clinton and Gore spelling out Saddam's nuclear program and WMD programs in 1992 when running for the office of President, and in 1998 after Clinton bombed Iraq for 30-days because Saddam tried to assassinate Bush #41. If you really want a good laugh try and find the footage of Kerry also spelling out Saddam's nuclear and WMD porgram on the day he voted to go to war with Iraq. Of that's the vote where he voted for the war before he voted against the war. That guy, he's so much fun!

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
06-28-2004, 11:37 AM
One of the things that disturbed me about the film was that the Bin Laden family was allowed to leave the country the day of the attakcs. That is against all CIA protocl (I think). If you or I committed a murder, they would detai our family for questioning, even if they were better people that the relative that committed the murder. Think about all the potential information we might have gotten had they been detainedI also love the footage that has Powell Rumsfeld and Bush in 2001 saying that Iraq and Sadam were not a threat to us and then all of the sudeen they have WMD and we are in "imminent" danger. I guess Moor fabricated all of those scenes. the only thing I ask is if you are going to bash Moore at least see the film and decide for yourself. It is lame to debate a topic with people who haven't seen it. It's funny how many can bash Moore, but in the same breath laud Rush. Talk about messed up...

Holy crap, what country do you live in? If a member of my family was accused of murder, the cops would have the right to come by and question me, but unless there was EVIDENCE that I either knew where you were, or had been involved, the police could NOT detain me. It's called habeus corpus...you need evidence of wrongdoing in order to detain a person. Just being a relative is not a crime, nor is it reason enough for the police to detain someone. All that aside, Mr Tenet, the head of the CIA was the one who gave the go-ahead. Bottom line, I'm not going to see the film because I don't want to help fill Moore's pockets. As such, I'm not going to debate the merits of the film, but since I HAVE seen other Moore films and interviews, I'm more than happy to discuss what flavor of scumbag HE is.

Section126
06-28-2004, 12:39 PM
Richard Clarke authorized the Bin Ladens leaving.......He said so himself.

Mr.Murder
06-28-2004, 04:08 PM
Clarke said others were involved in that decision. Read Against All Enemies. The supposed "direct quote" was not of Clarke it was of a female reporter for the Congressional staffer story.

Nice to see you misquote twice now.126 is on a roll. batting a thousand in the misquotes category. Errors do not help your average, or even on base percentage when the truth is the game to play.



So leaving on 9-13 when everyone else waited until 9-16 to fly was not being allowed to fly before any Americans were? Thanks for clarifying that fact in criticism of my post. Moore mentioned they flew before other Americans could, that is the point of he makes , the timeline is irrelevant there, the privilige and status Saudis got in the flights and the complaint of a former FBI investigator were relevant.

So telling the turth is lie when Mike Moore does it.

George Orwell meet ohall...


So Moore is flavored scumbag? Nice to know you've tasted him 1227. Don't go to the movie, live in critical ignorance of a subject you consider self an expert in...

PhinPhan1227
06-28-2004, 06:06 PM
So Moore is flavored scumbag? Nice to know you've tasted him 1227. Don't go to the movie, live in critical ignorance of a subject you consider self an expert in...


As I said Murder...I'm not commenting on F9/11 other than the fact that the tilte was stolen. I'm qualified to give an opinion of Moore however after seeing several films and interviews by/of him. See, you might want to take some time to understand that when a person only discusses a topic they have actually explored, that's not being ignorant of a subject in which proficiency has been expressed. Take your time...I'll be here when you're ready.

Mr.Murder
06-28-2004, 06:43 PM
And Bradbury has stolen titles previously, this movie revived interest in his best work. he is using the PR for his own betterment and should thank Moore privately.

Farenheit 2003- bradbury's account of bunred Dixie chicks CD and DVD that still make it to NUMBER ONE! Oh never mind that was parody of real events. The only other parody in real time terms is the Bush43 parody of a president.

Egg on your limo you election thief. This is your legacy.

ohall
06-28-2004, 07:26 PM
Clarke said others were involved in that decision. Read Against All Enemies. The supposed "direct quote" was not of Clarke it was of a female reporter for the Congressional staffer story.

Nice to see you misquote twice now.126 is on a roll. batting a thousand in the misquotes category. Errors do not help your average, or even on base percentage when the truth is the game to play.



So leaving on 9-13 when everyone else waited until 9-16 to fly was not being allowed to fly before any Americans were? Thanks for clarifying that fact in criticism of my post. Moore mentioned they flew before other Americans could, that is the point of he makes , the timeline is irrelevant there, the privilige and status Saudis got in the flights and the complaint of a former FBI investigator were relevant.

So telling the turth is lie when Mike Moore does it.

George Orwell meet ohall...


So Moore is flavored scumbag? Nice to know you've tasted him 1227. Don't go to the movie, live in critical ignorance of a subject you consider self an expert in...

International flights were cleared to leave on 9.13.01, you need to stop getting your info from DEMSAREUS.com. If you were an American that was flying internationally you were allowed to leave on 9.13.01!

Oliver...

Super_Duper85
06-29-2004, 07:18 AM
Typical of the Bush regime: Blame others. If Dick Clark authorized the Bin Ladens to leave, couldn't Bush, as a responsible president overturn that decision? Let me guess, he didn't know they were leaving the country. :confused: :confused:

ohall
06-29-2004, 08:07 AM
Typical of the Bush regime: Blame others. If Dick Clark authorized the Bin Ladens to leave, couldn't Bush, as a responsible president overturn that decision? Let me guess, he didn't know they were leaving the country. :confused: :confused:

Ummm I doubt he did specifically, but I wouldn't know. However I'm certain he had more important things to deal with than over seeing what planes and passangers of the millions grounded would be allowed to leave the country!

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
06-29-2004, 10:15 AM
Typical of the Bush regime: Blame others. If Dick Clark authorized the Bin Ladens to leave, couldn't Bush, as a responsible president overturn that decision? Let me guess, he didn't know they were leaving the country. :confused: :confused:


If the head of your Intelligence Bureau tells you...these people weren't involved, and it would be a good idea to get them out of the coutry...why would he overrule that opinion? The President HAS to rely on those around him...otherwise you get Jimmy Carter.

ohall
06-29-2004, 07:53 PM
If the head of your Intelligence Bureau tells you...these people weren't involved, and it would be a good idea to get them out of the coutry...why would he overrule that opinion? The President HAS to rely on those around him...otherwise you get Jimmy Carter.

Because of oil, sorry that's all I got, it's all about oil!

Oliver...

JPhinfan86
06-30-2004, 12:16 AM
Because of oil, sorry that's all I got, it's all about oil!

Oliver...

I have a feeling this comment won't go over to well with some of you. :foundout: :D