First, a quote from Dan Bartlett on the CNN website (06/25/04):



An opinion on the nature of 'the mainstream' is not the same as 'the mainstream' itself. Mr. Bartlett indicates that the president doesn't intend to view the film (I am certain ticket price is not the issue). Apparently Mr. Bartlett will also not view Farhenheit 9/11 in deference to the president. It seems they believe there exist enough people that will not view the film and take a similar critical approach, such as to create the impression that Moore is indeed "outside of the mainstream".


Quesions for debate:

1. Does the statement "filled with factual inaccuracies" (proceeding from an invalid critical basis) condescendingly imply that the film actually contains no "factual accuracies" or that supposed "factual inaccuracies" should be accepted on faith? Are not faith and fact like oil and water (i.e they don't mix)?

2. I have heard it said that Moore's presentation is "unfair" to the current administration. Is the implementation of the Patriot Act fair (a major theme of the film)? Is it fair to fight unfairness with unfairness?

3. Hypothetical: If admission were free to the film and you had the time, would you see it?

If not, why? Would you be fearful that it might change your own opinion? Would you blame not viewing it on the fact that you have kids?

If so, do you just want to be entertained or do you hope it will provide some valuable information? Or perhaps you want your current views validated?

No I would not see it. I would choose not to view it because I have seen other works of Moores, and read one of his books. They were filled with enough hate, lies and half-truths for me to judge the man as untrustworthy and manipulative.

When we had a air leak under a back porch door I put a piece of trim in to seal it. After tripping over that trim a few dozen times I took it back out. We learn from our mistakes and I learned from the mistake of wasting my time and money on Moore in the past.

1. Does the statement "filled with factual inaccuracies" (proceeding from an invalid critical basis) condescendingly imply that the film actually contains no "factual accuracies" or that supposed "factual inaccuracies" should be accepted on faith? Are not faith and fact like oil and water (i.e they don't mix)?
The statement does not say there is nothing true in the film. It is "filled with factual inaccuracies" means that there are many things that are in error (for instance, that it was Bush's ties to Saudi Arabia that led to the Saudi nationals being allowed to leave the country).

2. I have heard it said that Moore's presentation is "unfair" to the current administration. Is the implementation of the Patriot Act fair (a major theme of the film)? Is it fair to fight unfairness with unfairness?
Ask the 162 Democrats in the House who voted for the Patriot Act is it was "unfair to implement" it (versus the 62 who voted NO). Only one Democratic Senator opposed the Patriot Act (Russ Feingold). Maybe we should ask the others if it is fair to implement it? The Democrats position on the Patriot Act is hypocritical. They voted for it, apparently without reading it (if you want to take that line of reasoning ). They knew what they were doing. If they didn't, they should all be out on their ear.

3. Hypothetical: If admission were free to the film and you had the time, would you see it?
If Moore didn't make money from my viewing it, I would probably see it. Excluding information is never the right path, but I don't want someone to profit off of something that is so tenuously based on fact.

Actually, I saw Moore on Conan O'Brian last night and he came across as a nice guy. He said the film was his opinion and that he wasn't forcing anyone to see his film. He also came off as just about as soft on national defense as I could imagine (we shouldn't be using our military anywhere unless the US is attacked first). He probably is a nice guy, as a person. His view of the truth is not "mainstream", though (thankfully).

"They were filled with enough hate, lies and half-truths for me to judge the man as untrustworthy and manipulative."

so says 'overland sailor'. of Micheal Moore, well Mr Sailor, what was Bush doing when he stood on an aircraft carrier fullof Navy personnel, who had no choice but to applaud loudly , when, just over ayear ago he made links between the Iraqi government, saddam hussein, and 9/11. He did this to justify invading a nation which posed no threat to world peace whatsoever. Now of course they do. Your military abuses of prisoners of war has seen to that.

So sir, I ask you. Do you also refuse to listen to your president? because his statements are full of "enough hate, lies and half-truths for me to judge the man as untrustworthy and manipulative."

Or do his half truths and lies seem easier to digest?

1. Does the statement "filled with factual inaccuracies" (proceeding from an invalid critical basis) condescendingly imply that the film actually contains no "factual accuracies" or that supposed "factual inaccuracies" should be accepted on faith? Are not faith and fact like oil and water (i.e they don't mix)?

I think it implies they are scared of the film.

Moore employed an independent fact checking company to check everything thouroughly before the release of the film. He makes several conclusions that I don't necessarily buy into, but by and large he presents only stock footage and interviews. I'd like to see someone legitimate (like the whitehouse) try and debunk these so called "factual innaccuracies".

Secondly, if you actually watch the film (which I know some of you have not), it is very clear when Moore is stating something as fact and when he is giving us his opinion. I had absolutely no problems knowing when Moore was making his opinion know, generally it was when he was speaking, and when he was showing us facts. He could have not even said a word and the film would have been just as powerful.

2. I have heard it said that Moore's presentation is "unfair" to the current administration.

I'm sure that the GOP thinks a lot of things in this film are unfair, but it isn't some kind of fabrication. Bush and his administration really did and said these things. The stock footage is in the public record, Moore just put it all together in a digestible 2 hour package.



This movie is completely unlike any movie Michael Moore has ever film or any book he has ever written. So your criticism here that it is the same as everything else is off base. How can you really even comment on the movie if you haven't seen it?

Having seen the film yesterday, (I had to get there early, every showing was sold out) I continue to wonder about those who feel confident enough to criticise the movie without even seeing it.

Frankly I thought it was an exectionally powerful movie, made with a great deal of skill. Moore is much more careful in this movie to distinguish between what is fact and what is his opinion, he took a lot of flak after Bowling for Columbine for presenting his opinion as factual.

There are some comments in it which even I felt were unecessarily biased (such as not explicitly mentioning the UK as a member of the coalition of the willing), but on the other hand there are a lot of clear facts he presented which are incredibly damning. Frnkly, the most incredibly damaging thing to Bush in this movie for me was not his reaction to 9/11 or anything else, it was the description of the first 8 months of his presidency: sagging polls, loss of support and confidence and the fact tht he was on vacation for 42% of it.



Actaully the movie is quite careful about that: Moore asks the question if the ties to the Bush family are what allowed the Bin ladens to flee the country as soon as aircraft were allowed to fly again, he does not present it as anything other than a question, and his opinion. Again, he is pretty careful about that.


EVEN IF you assume some of his opinions are exaggerated and he takes a particular spin on the fact, the movie presents an incredibly damning view of Bush and his presidency. Only by just dismissing the whole thing without seeing it can you address all of the errors and questionable actions of this administration pesented in the film.

He was being manipulative as well. That is what politicians do. And we choose to take everything with a grain of salt that comes out of a politicians mouth, if we are smart. However, as a member of the US Navy Reserve I have to say that I would have likely applauded the President. After all, he was telling us how well we were doing our jobs, and how proud he was of us. Hard not to applaud that.

Mr. Moore however, pretends to be a documentary film maker. Documentaries are supposed to document the truth. He claims his work is all truth. Well then other times he claims it's opinion, then still others it's all truth. He can't make his mind.



Well I dare say that his lies and manipulations do not rise to the level of Mr. Moores, however, though he is my president as I am an American he his not my choice for the job. As for Hate, sorry don't see it in Bush. Lies and half-truths, well that comes from all politicians, a job requirement I believe.

Don't assume people are all one way or another. I happen to have very real issues with the President and many of his policies. The war in Iraq happens not to be one of them. I can not vote for Kerry I have real issues with him as well. So my vote will likely go to the Libertarian candidate, though I have not as yet heard enough about him, so I can't commit to that just yet.

Take a trip to Iraq. Meet the people there. Talk to the 90%+ of the Iraqi people who want us there, want their chance at freedom, and would thank us for our efforts. Get to know them and what their lives were like before and after we went there. Meet the people who live in towns that have never had running water or electricity in history until the Seabees arrived. Try to learn the real story before you decide to condemn an entire people to misery the once lived just because you don't like the man in the white house.



You know, it is one thing to suggest that people are one sided in their political beliefs. It is entirely another to suggest that someone abused prisoners in their charge while serving his country. I served with honor and distinction while in Kuwait and Iraq. I abused no one.

How dare you accuse me of such. If this is the way you think people should approach political debate then you have come to the wrong site. Try anyone of the countless other so called debate sites. You'll fit right into their flame wars. I am sure you can find a site where your choice to personally attack people is acceptable. It is not acceptable here, and I for one see no reason to waste any future time on any posts from someone who would stoop to such outrageous tactics.

edited to add: I just noticed that was your first post here. OK, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were unaware of how people are expected to act here. I won't forget the slander, but I can make the effort to forgive it. Take some time to read the rules for AD. Hopefully, you'll learn that civility is the order of the day here.

Well that is the first time I heard anything like this. Maybe I will have to give it a chance. I will wait to read some reviews from both sides of the aisle, but specifically from the middle before I decide to see it. But, there is hope.

Well I don't think anyone here has tried to say the entire film is false (in fact that has been flatly denied)

...however if a sizable portion of the film in misleading propaganda it doesn't speak well for Moore.

I'll introduce this "Newsweek" article, hardly a tool of the Republican machine.

Under the Hot Lights

From what I hear, these accusations are a prominent part of the film.
To answer the question...

Sure, I'd see it, free or not. I don't think Moore is dangerous or anything so I have no problem giving him money. When I find the time, I'll go see it and check his facts myself since his pricey checkers seemed to have slipped up a bit...

Same idea as the last politically charged movie that some people refuse to see. Have we all forgotten "The Passion of the Christ?

Just switch the sides, some "liberals" (a generalization, I know) refused to see it because it was those crazy evangelicals at work . I think avoiding such films is pointless...

Overland Sailor



I'm sorry but I have to ask; Does this mean you are unaware that Michael Moore won the Golden Palmes at Cannes for 'Farenheit 9/11'?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


1. Does the statement "filled with factual inaccuracies" (proceeding from an invalid critical basis) condescendingly imply that the film actually contains no "factual accuracies" or that supposed "factual inaccuracies" should be accepted on faith? Are not faith and fact like oil and water (i.e they don't mix)?

I think they are simply trying to make out that Moore is a liar without actually saying so. All across the net there are dismissive and abusive conservatives describing Moore as such, and I think the White House PR dude is saying much the same thing.


2. I have heard it said that Moore's presentation is "unfair" to the current administration. Is the implementation of the Patriot Act fair (a major theme of the film)? Is it fair to fight unfairness with unfairness?

Heaven only knows!
All I know about this is Moore has just as much right to make a commentry (which is what he described it in the interview I saw) concerning any law he is unhappy about.


3. Hypothetical: If admission were free to the film and you had the time, would you see it?

If it were free? Yes.


If so, do you just want to be entertained or do you hope it will provide some valuable information? Or perhaps you want your current views validated?

I never look a gift horse in the mouth.

And I want to see some of the excellent footage I've heard is in the film. I'm fairly sure that following events online I am aware of most of Moore's claims. But living in far flung Scandinavia its difficult to ever get to see footage of the things we debate here.

This claim isn't as solid as many people would like to believe, I could have sworn we already discussed this but maybe not. Take a read of this article.



The section below is Clarke's original 9/11 commission testimony.



The FBI goes on to say that they interviewed some of the people on the flight, but not everyone. Clarke in his testimony admits he doesn't know who approved the flight.



Therefore, I would respectfully suggest that Moore's questioning of the situation is completely valid. No one knows who approved that flight, not even Clarke. I took special notice to use the word questioning because that is exactly how Moore presents it, not as fact.


Actually they only make up a minor part of the film, it is much more focused on other areas. Moore mentions the flights once, and leaves it at that, pretty much as I described above. He takes a little time to explore the relationship between the Bush and Bin Laden families, but again he only raises questions here, he doesn't draw any hard conclusions.


I didn't watch it because I'm agnostic and have zero interest in religion.

Edited for spelling and clarification.

You are not actually suggesting that Cannes has no political leanings. France combined with Hollywood, well now, theirs an unbiased opinion.

Seriously, so far I have heard little if anything about Moore's movie that suggested it was factually accurate. Moore himself seems torn between calling it the truth and calling it opinion.

As an American who lives on a very tight budget I will not just spend my money on just going to see any movie. I will wait to hear what is said about it from various angles and then make my decision based on my own gut feeling and what I have heard.

So far, I see no reason to spend my families MONTHLY movie allotment on this film.

3. Hypothetical: If admission were free to the film and you had the time, would you see it?

Apparently that wasn't necessary for a vast majority of people this weekend. Here is a link to the preliminary numbers for the Friday Box Office take.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is in the number 1 spot with $8.2 Million after only the first day, weekend is not even close to over yet. This is especially impressive considering how many screens it is playing on. These numbers are estimates, but confirmed by all sites which publish these numbers, the actual numbers are due on Monday.

I recommend reading the Review by Ebert in the Chicago Sun Times. 9Just type ebert review into Google to find it) He makes some excellent points about the movie, and is in general the only reviewer I actually trust...

It is still a slanted movie, but as I said it does a good job of differentiating between his opinion and ctual fact, though many of the actual facts are damning enough without even adding Moore's opinion.


Oh, and Turnea and others:



I read this newsweek review before I saw the movie, and was surprised such a respectable magasine could make such mistakes.

Moore CLEARLY and obviously states that the Saudis were flown out of the country on the 14th of September, and were the first planes to leave USairspace ONCE the skies had been reopened. He never states they were flying around when all other aircraft were grounded, he is in fact quite explicit that they left afterwards. I am surprised newsweek would make such a bush-league mistake...

turnea,



I, like cube jockey am also an agnostic. I did see "The Passion" though. While I believe it was faithful to Catholic Orthodoxy, I don't necessarily believe it was true to historical fact. It also left me depressed for a couple of days afterward.

As far as matters of religous or historical fact, I lean more toward historical fact. I would like to see more films out there that deal with this aspect of Christianity. To rely on the interperetation of our own 'clerics' leaves us with no higher moral authority than Islamic fundamentalists (most muslims also know of Jesus, yet it is a totally alien Jesus to us, and antithetical to most Christian orthodoxy).

With regards to the film at hand (Farhenheit), I have not seen it myself yet. I have no adverse predisposition towards it, but I suppose many people do. I was curious to see how many people would base an ill-formed 'opinion' of it (much like The Passion) on what someone else told them. If one is familiar with Moore's other work and don't like it (as Overland Sailor), I suppose that is a sufficient excuse. But I would question the 'not liking' aspect. If Farhenheit does contain mostly fact, what is 'to like' or 'not like'? It is merely information! Moore tends to package his material with a spin for entertainment value. It is interesting to hear people who watch "The O'Really Factor" (known for its right leaning spin) for so-called 'information' who in turn bash Moore without being familiar with his material. Let's face it, we Americans are materialistic and we want to be entertained. People who like O'Reilly are entertained by O'Reilly. It is likewise with Michael Moore. When did this happen? That so many in our culture have to like someone or be entertained to get their information? Not everything is entertainment, and I would argue it is dangerous for the 'news' to be so.

I too watched much of the 9-11 Comission hearings. Most people only paid attention during the Clark testimony. This is where I didn't pay attention. We can get into the minutae of what exactly happened and when, but that has been done for us by the Commission. Ulterior motive is important to me and these abound surrounding the aftermath of 9-11, from the petty looting immediately afterward, to the implementation of the Patriot Act, to the subversive slide into the war in Iraq. Very few things entertain me these days but I would say that a serious challenging of 'whiny republican' paradigms (they still think they are the minority party) is very entertaining.

I do so enjoy the utterances emmanating from the White House these days and Moore pushes the boundaries of patriotism beyond the wishes of the elected few.

After reading most of his books I believe he is the ultimate American Patriot. He dares to stand against the omnipotent President for the love of his country.
That's a patriot.

This is understandable.
No-one enjoys having their stained jocky shorts hung out to dry.
I love the '....good fiction movie..' remark but I would suggest 'Shrek' would be a little adventurous for GW after all it is rated from 3yrs onward.
This apparently concludes that the 'Mainstream' is the GWB version.
No wonder they like good fiction movies.

I knew GWB, and his staff, were endowed with finely honed extra sensory perceptions. They knew the Iraq war had been accomplished well before we did.
They knew Iraq had threatening WMD's.
They knew 9/11 was Iraqs fault.
They haven't seen the movie, but they just know.
Incredible......such a gift.

Is 'Factual Inaccuracies' the opposite of 'Fictional Facts'?
Ain't it just amazing how we cant simply say 'Lies' or 'Truth' any more?

Regards.....Alan

It will be interesting to see if those numbers hold for the weekend. Basically, F911 managed to cream it's "mainstream" competition with less than a third of the theaters of the bigger movies such as Harry Potter's over 3K screens.

Digging deeper however, we can see Moore picked an excellent weekend to open the movie, with it's only first weekend competition being "White Chicks" which well if you haven't seen the trailer, you probably shouldn't.

This statement completely backs up one of the reviews I read about the movie..that Moore constantly presents facts with no conclusion. This is a classic example...are you implying that Bush created 9-11 to raise his status in the polls? If not, what then?

I have no problem with Moore, or anyone else, making such a film...although I do wonder about the timing. I'm not sure we need to have our system get to the point where elections are based on a serier of poliitically based movies...which have no requirements to be based on any factual evidence (not that this necessarily applies to this movie---but you can see where this is going). On the other, whether such a state would be good or bad is probably irrelevant, as I also don't see any way to restrict it if it goes that way.

Yep, whole different animal. Where Moore examines real people and real events, Passion examined historical people who may not even have existed and events that may have never happened, and there's no way to verify the validity of any of it.

In other words, Passion was 100% opinion.

Farenheit is about 20% opinion, I'd speculate after having seen the flick. The rest is factual realities that I distinctly remember living through and interpreting in the same ways.

Another difference: We are not fighting a war because of what happened 2,000 years ago; we are fighting a war because of what's happened in the past 4 years or so.

In other words, Passion had nothing to do with current events and politics. It had everything to do with people's beliefs in things that are not verifiable.

Both flicks are current events, however. I think that's where the confusion comes in when trying to equate the two. This is the only characteristic they share.

But I do get how the right wing would love Passion and hate Farenheit, and vice versa for the left wing. This is rather interesting but out of scope for the debate.

The movie doesn't present it that way, it is never suggested that Bush in any way, shape or form planned 9/11. The movie does suggest that Bush could have probably been doing more about it though. It also chides him for getting virtually nothing done the first 8 months of his presidency and taking an unprecedented amount of vacation.

This is exactly the same debate we have gotten into here on AD multiple times. Even Moore doesn't suggest they could have prevented it, but he calls to light a lot of the things we have discussed here (i.e. The Aug 6th Memo, Clarke being ignored, The FBI having knowledge about people taking flight training, etc). All of us have discussed these things at length, but the average Joe doesn't know about them.

Edited to add:


The same link cited in this quoted section now contains updated estimates for the weekend. Fahrenheit 9/11 is still in the #1 spot, and has estimated revenues of $21.8 Million for the weekend, pretty much blowing away every documentary record on the books.

The side effect here is that there will likely be a few news stories written on Monday talking about this, and hopefully that will prompt even more people to see it. It might even convince several theaters that aren't screening the movie now to get a copy of it. I doubt the numbers will be the same next weekend though, Spiderman 2 is coming out.

I think that the statement that the White House made regarding the validity of the movie is too dismissive to be taken seriously. Sure, one can justify such a statement by saying that a movie like Bowling for Columbine had factual inaccuracies - or at least slanted representations of the facts, but saying that this movie is completely false would not be fair.

Also, I find it sort of dangerous that people who are predisposed to rejecting Michael Moore will not see the movie and then use other sources to try to make the point that the movie has inaccuracies. To be more specific, a link was given in another thread about Moore to a website by Move America Forward that debunked some of the inaccuracies in the movie. Besides the fact that most of the things on the page were not inaccuracies but just reasons why they do not like Michael Moore's tactics of filmmaking, one example that people continually refer to is with bin Laden's family being flown out of the country on September 13, 2001. The main point that Moore seemed to be making is that although the family had denounced Osama bin Laden long ago, it is possible that they had seen each other fairly recently and it would have been in the best interest of the government to at least talk to these 26 or so people who are related to the person who was the main suspect in the death of almost 3000 Americans, which doesn't seem to have taken place.

I apologize for going off on a tangent; I just feel that it is not safe to criticize the movie if you haven't seen it.

I've got a tip for you on this. Go to a theater where Fahrenheit 9/11
is playing. Tell the ticket-seller you want a ticket for, let's say, Raising
Helen. They do not check your tickets once you are inside the theater,
so you can walk into Michael Moore's movie. That way you can see the movie
without contributing to the cause. (I did something similar a couple of weeks ago.
I wanted to see The Terminal, with Tom Hanks, but it was already sold out.
So I asked for two tickets for Raising Helen, but actually saw The
Terminal.)



It's pretty ridiculous to make a claim about something a person has not
seen. It leads me to believe that they have seen it, and thus, are trying
to do damage control, before anybody else sees it.




I don't know what is fair. But, it is definitely every American's right to know
the real facts of the dealings of our administration. Do we not all want the
plain and simple truth? I am against the Bush adminstration because I
believe they have mislead the American people. It has nothing to do with
Dem/Rep partisanship. Yet, they try to paint Michael Moore as a bleeding heart
liberal. Maybe he just wants the truth, like most of America.




I'll go and see it, and I'm happy to pay the ticket price. I saw Bowling for
Columbine, and I thought it was a heart-felt film, that gave some insight
to some legitimate issues we all need to address.

Michael Moore defends the movie from the Newsweek article:

You can find it here

1. Does the statement "filled with factual inaccuracies" (proceeding from an invalid critical basis) condescendingly imply that the film actually contains no "factual accuracies" or that supposed "factual inaccuracies" should be accepted on faith? Are not faith and fact like oil and water (i.e they don't mix)?

The statement seems reasonably clear and straightforward. No, "filled with factual inaccuracies" does not imply that the film contains no "factual accuracies". Why do you ask? More to the point, are there not supposed to be monitors on this site who filter out nonsensical questions in the beginning of a thread?


2 .I have heard it said that Moore's presentation is "unfair" to the current administration. Is the implementation of the Patriot Act fair (a major theme of the film)? Is it fair to fight unfairness with unfairness?

You seem to be conceding that the film IS unfair, but are justifying it's unfairness because the Patriot Act seems “unfair” to you. What specifically is unfair about the Patriot Act? Are you aware that it was passed, not by the Bush administration, but by the Congress? With majorities of both parties voting for it? Did Moore mention this in his “documentary”? No, he did not. Why is that? After all, the Patriot Act is a "major theme of the film", right? And this is a "documentary", correct? Not a piece of agit-prop or a political commercial?


3. Hypothetical: If admission were free to the film and you had the time, would you see it?

If not, why? Would you be fearful that it might change your own opinion? Would you blame not viewing it on the fact that you have kids?

No, I would not go see it. For one thing I would be reluctant to patronize trash. For another, I would have to be concerned about being attacked by the increasingly storm-trooperish goons who make up the idiot left.

In all fairness, I must acknowledge that the intellectual left has given Moore what he deserves.

Just a point in closing. The Democrats really, really wanted to make Howard Dean their nominee, but the realization sunk in that they would be perceived by the rest of the counrty as basically crazy. John Kerry was the sane, normal, electible candidate. Unfortunately (for them) they simply cannot keep their deranged views under wraps, and are now embracing as their main spokesman somebody who makes Dean appear temperate, prudent, and restrained. And while doing so, they think they are pulling off a major victory over the evil Bush forces! Let me be the first to predict that when we look back six months from now, the release of this movie and its embrace by the Democratic establishment and base will be seen as the turning point in Bush winning reelection.

one incident out of literally 1000's of positive experiences which have been published and millions who continue to see the movie; sounds like you have a lot to be afraid of by going to the movies, perhaps we should dial up the department of homeland security and have them stake out movie theaters.

Not going to see the movie is your right, but if you are going to make generalizations like that about "the left" then you should be prepared to back it up with something more solid than one incident.

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Rea...df06252004.html


More documentation regarding the evacuation of Saudis when other domestic flights were grounded.

I am not surprised that the representatives of the Bush administration would discredit the film without seeing it. Moore did offer to give the White House a private screening; the White House declined.

The Bush administration has had to exercise a lot of damage control as far as the press is concerned, as well as the resignations of and books written by Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, and the statements of General Zinni* and a number of retired diplomats. The administration uses the same broad brush to paint them all as sell-outs and villains. I cannot remember a President and administration that attracted as much criticism from former employees (except maybe Nixon?)--why is that? Does everyone dislike and criticize this President without cause?

Rather than trying to discredit Moore's latest effort, perhaps a better response for the administration would be to train Ann Coulter in filmmaking and have her produce a tit-for-tat documentary of Bush's detractors.

*Gen. Zinni: "They've screwed up"

I just love the way Americans cremenate and bury issues in the wraps of debate.
It seems if we talk enough and debate enough the issues are gone.


Convince me I am wrong.

Care to you.............Alan

Let's keep the debate on-topic and stay away from broad-brushed statements.

Questions for debate:

1. Does the statement "filled with factual inaccuracies" (proceeding from an invalid critical basis) condescendingly imply that the film actually contains no "factual accuracies" or that supposed "factual inaccuracies" should be accepted on faith? Are not faith and fact like oil and water (i.e they don't mix)?

2. I have heard it said that Moore's presentation is "unfair" to the current administration. Is the implementation of the Patriot Act fair (a major theme of the film)? Is it fair to fight unfairness with unfairness?

3. Hypothetical: If admission were free to the film and you had the time, would you see it?

If not, why? Would you be fearful that it might change your own opinion? Would you blame not viewing it on the fact that you have kids?

If so, do you just want to be entertained or do you hope it will provide some valuable information? Or perhaps you want your current views validated?

Moore's film is true to his political beliefs, radical as they may be. At least that's what most observers report after seeing it. I wouldn's waste my own time or money.

I have read interviews with Moore and listened to his 'thinking'. In particular his immediate response to 9/11. He has convinced me that he is an enemy of the USA and is working to do what little he can to bring down our gov't and way of life.

His film is an enemy propoganda production meant to undermine our security. In doing so he also threatens the safety of our troops, which he allegedly supports.

There is growing speculation that he is receiving financial backing from questionable sources. Apparently an investigation is well under way, but is going to take time. The Justice Dept realizes that they have to tie this thing down six ways to Sunday because they will be accused of playing dirty politics.

The funny thing about this report is that it originated with the BBC, a decidedly anti-American 'news' source. The slant was surely that the Bushies were going after Moore. Oddly enough, when I went to the BBC site the report had been taken down. I have tried in vain to get a response from them as to why it disappeared.

The sooner Mr. Moore is behind bars the better. He is a prime example of someone who doesn't deserve to enjoy the freedom we fight to preserve for him. He is no less an enemy of freedom than any of the terrorists operating in Iraq.

As the cell-door clangs shut on him I wonder what his leftist supporters will have to say.

I wouldn't.

This is supposed to be a documentary. Having seen a debate in which Christopher Hitchens completely destroyed any notion that Michael Moore made documentaries, and Mr. Moore completely unable to substantiate his views was enough for me.

Would I fear it would change my position? Absolutely not. If the Pope couldn't do it, if the French the Germans and the Russians couldn't do it, then certainly a film by a sad little man, who can't even defend his previous films surely can't.

Red

What on earth are you talking about?

Of course I am not implying Bush created 9/11 or anything of the kind, where did you get that from? I thought my statement was pretty clear: I find it incredibly damning that Bush was such an utter lame-duck Presient prior to 9/11, who was losing support weekly, could not get any of his few initiative accomplished, cut funding to anti-terrorist agencies, and spent 42% of his first 8 months on vacation.

There is no inference there about 9/11, execpt that it's happenstance may have saved him from becoming known as one of the most pitiful presidents in US history.

What on earth are you talking about?

On June 7th, 2001, Bush signed into law a $1.35 trillion tax cut, meeting one of his major campaign promises. You may not agree with the policy, but it is hardly a trivial accomplishment. Where do you get this notion that he accomplished nothing during his first eight months in office? Oh, yes, from this movie.

If this is true, then it just confirms whats its critics are saying; that the movie is dishonest.

Personal attack removed

So am I right in thinking that having never seen it your unbiased judgement is not to see it?

Regards..........Alan

Thats twice you have inferred things about my posts I never said.

I know about the tax cut, I know about what Bush accomplished in his first term.

Tell you what, rather then having you misinterpret my comment about a section of the movie again, may I humbly make the suggestion that you go and see the movie, so that we can have a discussion about it based on what is in it, not what you think might be in it?

My original comment was that one of the most damning parts of the film is the section about the first 8 months of Bush's presidency. Once you have seen the film, I would be more than happy to talk about the merits or flaws of this section with you.


Redliner



Forgive me but isn't that a bit... trying to find a nice way to say this... Dogmatic of you?

Essentially your point seems to be you refuse to see it, but even though you have not seen it you KNOW that it would not change your opinion because nothing can change your opinion.

Am I misinterpreting (in which case I apologise), or is that the case? If it is, it scares me a little bit. Nobody, not you or me or anyone, should ever get so intrenched in their ideas of what is right that they refuse to acept the possibility of any change.

It's very kind of you to offer me the chance to expound on the idiot left. Due to considerations of space, and the rule against straying off topic, I'll have decline for now. But it's definitely a topic for another thread sometime.

The opposite of a generalization is a distinction. I made a very clear distinction between the idiot left and the intellectual left. There is such a distinction, just as there is an idiot right and an intellectual right. Up until about a week ago, there was no question of where Moore stood in this picture. Now of course his star blazes so brightly as to eclipse even that of the noted political philosopher, Al Franken.

I made some pointed comments as to the deficiencies in the movie as a documentary, as well as it's likely affect on the upcoming elections. Your silence on these topics is strange; after all, we are supposed to be discussing the move, yes?

Let me point out a further example of what I see as the dishonesty of the movie, and why it cannot be taken seriously as a documentary. Moore depicts Iraq under Saddam as some idyllic Eden, where carefree children frolic under the gaze of their beaming parents. The truth of what life was like under Saddam is hardly a secret.
Here
is some footage which Moore could have, and should have, included in any serious documentary.

Did you download the clip I linked to and watch it? If not, to throw your own comments back to you, what have you to be afraid of?

This is what you said;

I find it incredibly damning that Bush was such an utter lame-duck Presient prior to 9/11, who was losing support weekly, could not get any of his few initiative accomplished, cut funding to anti-terrorist agencies, and spent 42% of his first 8 months on vacation.

I did not infer anything. I am quoting you directly. You claim that Bush "could not get any of his few initiative(sic) accomplished". I responded by pointing out that this is not true, that he actually managed to get a major initiative signed into law, in the period before 9/11.

I'm glad you know about the tax cut. I just don't understand how you can make the statement you did if you know about it.

I am in fact discussing the movie. Specifically, I am discussing some of the misconceptions which people who have seen the movie seem to have picked up. These misconceptions seem to be a severe indictment of the movie as a serious documentary, whatever they say about its effectiveness as political propaganda.

Edited to add;
Despite the comments of the administrator, I seem to be the only person on the thread with any interest in discussing the movie.

You are correct. Only one of your two comments was a completely baseless inferral , the other was the taking of obvious hyperbole as gsopel while ignoring my actual point.

Yes, Obviously Bush did not get NO bills, laws or acts through in his 8 month pre 9-11 term, we all know that. He did however fail to get many of his policies through. That, as was clear, a portion of my point.



If you wish to discuss the movie in general without seeing it, you of course have that right. You can base your opinions on the reviews of other people and the opinions of other people, and recycle them here as necessary.

However, if you want to, as you are trying to do with me, discuss the specific content of a section of the movie, without actually having seen it or knowing what I am refering to, does that not strike you as a little bit fruitless? I certainly do.

As i said, if you wish to continue this specific debate, please feel free to see the movie, then if you wish to discuss the specific contents of this section with me, I shall be at your disposal.




please.

1.)Yes, to side-step the question without offering evidence is something that shows a lack of understanding on the administration's part. There are many points that could be argued in the film, how hard would it have been to pick out one or two and mention them to the press? Then again, that's what right wing radio hosts are for. The president takes the high road and his hit-men get down adn dirty in the trenches with the democrats. Faith is good for people I suppose. I have "faith" that I might be a movie star-it all gives one a sense of inflated, false hopes, but if it works for somen then it's good for them I guess.

2.)I've heard that complaint as well. Michael Isikoff of newsweek made some big mistakes in reporting about Moore's work that is now getting lots of air play on right wing radio. I won't enumerate them here, but you can click on Michael Moore's 911 facts page to clear up the misconceptions that are flying around, some of which have been posted on other threads as well.

I don't see LYING as a requirement for the job of Presidency.

How many wars has Moore started with his lies?


How many peolpe have been KILLED because of Moore's lies?


I would be happy to send you a ticket for everyone in your family, with popcorn included. Buttered.

1. Does the statement "filled with factual inaccuracies" (proceeding from an invalid critical basis) condescendingly imply that the film actually contains no "factual accuracies" or that supposed "factual inaccuracies" should be accepted on faith? Are not faith and fact like oil and water (i.e they don't mix)?

Wait, we have never seen the film and it is full of factual inaccuracies???? HUH?

"Hey, we have never seen WMD but we KNOW they are there!!!!!"

Same old administration........same old spin. Anyone else tired of it yet?

2. I have heard it said that Moore's presentation is "unfair" to the current administration. Is the implementation of the Patriot Act fair (a major theme of the film)? Is it fair to fight unfairness with unfairness?

Life is NOT fair. Mr. Bush made his own bed. Moore might be tucking him a little tighter than normal, but it is still HIS bed, and he needs to lie in it. (As in LAY DOWN IN IT Mr. President, NOT continue to LIE in it.)

I haven't posted in a while. However, after seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 and reading some of this thread, I felt compelled to contribute.

Following are my answers to the quesions for debate:



I think the statement by Dan Bartlett is much more shallow than you have implied. I believe the statement is a crafty way of saying that the film is "full of lies". However, the White House cannot actually come out and say such a thing, because the film has been carefully examined to be factually accurate. If the White House were to take the position that Michael Moore's film contains outright lies, they would be put to task on what those lies actually are.

The film may mislead the audience to believe certain things to be true, but does not openly state anything that is untrue. After seeing the movie, I would agree that Michael Moore's film could potentially mislead an uninformed or intellectually lazy audience. However, Moore's film does not hold a candle to the President's gross "factual inaccuracies" concerning Iraq and the war on terror.



I will try hard to get to the root of the question: "Is it fair to fight unfairness with unfairness?"

I don't think so - and I don't think that is what this film is about. Undoubtedly the film is unfavorable to the current administration. Is that a fair tactic for a political documentary? You bet.

As Americans, we were unfairly sold on a war that did not benefit the interests of our country. The true cost of this war was withheld from the public and not even open to debate. I was against the invasion because I was not listening to the mainstream press. I was listening to alternative news sources, reading foreign press releases, and researching on the internet.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration was playing our mainstream media like a fiddle. America was gung-ho on going into Iraq. The deception worked so well that as of September 2003 almost 70% of Americans still think Saddam Hussein was "personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks" (source-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm)

How did Americans fall for such an unfair presentation of the facts? Emotion. The Bush administration took advantage of our vulnerability and used it to exercise their agenda. Americans were so angry about September 11 that we needed to project our fear and aggression onto something tangible. Saddam Hussein was a logical patsy and a convenient target for our rage. The benefit of attacking Iraq seemed to far outweigh whatever the cost may be.

Michael Moore's film examines who will really benefit from this war, and more important - what the true cost has been. He points out a series of coincidences that bring into question the motives of this war. However, the most powerful message in the film comes from Lila Lipscomb who lost her son in Iraq.

Toward the end of the film, Lila goes to the White House and engages in a exchange with a women who resents Lila's anger toward Bush for her son's death. The woman says that her anger should be directed toward the terrorists, not Bush.

And so we come to the crux of the film, and where we are as Americans. We have become so consumed with our grief and anger that we are constantly looking for someone to blame. We are seeking closure as a country and do so by polarizing our beliefs and chanting, "You're either with us, or you're a terrorist."

Michael Moore turns that reasoning on its head by shifting our reactions from scenes in the film against George W. Bush. After a devastating scene involving Lila Lipscomb reading her son's final letter from Iraq, Moore cuts to footage of President Bush endorsing the war regardless of the sacrifice (a hard pill to swallow after what we have just seen). This deliberate manipulation of our emotions demonstrates how easily our opinion toward the issue of this war can change - and therein lies the point.

I believe that Michael Moore's film is essential for America to reach a common ground. We need to carefully examine the cost of this war and how it benefits those in power. We cannot simply except what is being told to us from one side of the aisle . To do so would be a dereliction of duty as a society of free thinking individuals.

I feel that any unfairness to the Bush Administration is buoyed by Moore's fairness to America and depiction of humanity. His love for this country and its citizens shines throughout the entire film. He takes great care in showcasing the "backbone" of America and the hard-working underdog on which this country was built.



Although this question seems to be directed to those who sit on the side of hating Michael Moore, I want to address the larger issue. We need to be open to the idea of sharing information with each other. If we decide to galvanize our position by ignoring the other side, we will become viciously divided as a country and end up destroying ourselves.

Ultimately, this film contains information necessary to making decisions about how we will move forward as a country. Whatever your political leanings, Fahrenheit 9/11 will deeply affect you and should cause you to question what you currently believe to be true. If you decide not to see this film based on political bias you have pulled the wool over your eyes. The same would be true for those who accept the film as gospel.

I look forward to debating the finer points in the film elsewhere on this forum.

I just wanted to address this part of the question for a minute.

I had my older daughter's father take her while we saw the film (she is 9 1/2) and we took our 7 month old daughter because we couldn't get a babysitter for her -- but we felt the film was important to see.

There are many disturbing scenes in the film that I'm glad my older daughter didn't see. I very much agree with the 'R' rating in this film.

But the film is important enough to see that if you do have kids you should get a
babysitter.



Well, first of all I don't find that Moore's film is an unfair portrayal -- there are some important questions that this administration needs to answer, but never will. That is far more unfair to the US and Iraqi people than the film is to the Bush administration.

People are dying and losing civil rights. I'm not going to shed a tear because someone is finally giving Bush Co. the shake up it needs and deserves.

Gee, then what are all the commentaries about how so many holes are in most every story line in the movie about? Or are they also liers?

We all know what motivates Mr. Moore, he makes no "bones about it". Money and perceived power.

This brings to question his judgement.

What Michael Moore has done to the "respected documentary" is the real shame in all of this. He took it from a nobel effort, to nothing more then the common letter to the editor.

People who are for the current administration are often accused of being "brainwashed". What does the "joy" over this docu (um) mentary say about the opposition?

Yes.
Conservative commentators are lying when they make spurious claims about the accuracy of the film. They assume their audience won't see the movie to make up their own mind. What is discussed in the movie is information that anyone who follows the news (other than Fox News) already knows, simply put in context.
You can read here to see a typical hatchet job disproven point by point.

Care to back up these "commentaries" with links? I have yet to read an article which accurately points out ONE lie in the film? Just because you disagree with the point of the film (or in this case, as I'm sure you haven't seen it), disagree with what other people tell you the film is about, doesn't mean you can allege he is a liar. Both the Slate and Newsweek articles have been publically corrected and disputed for the numerous LIES in the articles. See Grendal's link above for the Slate article, see this link for information on the inaccuracies of the Newsweek article.

How are we supposed to take your debate seriously when you're basing your arguments off of vague accusations that only tow the party line?

I just came from seeing the film. I thought it was very good, I can't say I enjoyed it considering how angry I was coming out of it. Having seen Bowling for Columbine, I would say this one is much better -- much more careful about what he states in the film and relies more on the use of footage and sound bytes (often Bush, Rice, Powell, and others contradicting themselves in interviews) than on gimmicks.

This film says very little that is negative about the troops abroad, it even excuses some of the abuse and humiliation doled out to prisoners. It makes an interesting statement about what is necessary to do the job. I'm sure it is much easier to pull a trigger while listening to your own Megadeath soundtrack in your helmet than to deal with the sobering post firing silence -- much easier to fire on a building to the tune of "The Roof Is On Fire". I was touched by the story of the proud military family and the mother's description of them as the back on which America is built. The letter written by her son a few weeks before he was killed in action was interesting as well -- "I hope they don't re-elect that fool." This mother is the most compelling aspect of the film. We see her before and after her disillusionment.

As I recall Moore was talking to a Democrat when we we heard the representative tell us that members of the Senate and Congress don't read most bills put before them which is why the Patriot Act passed without it having been read. And it was the entire Senate that refused to sign objections from the people of Florida that were disenfranchised in the 2000 elections. So you can't say this had an entirely anti-Republican film.

There are some elements of the film that "have no conclusion", but the point there seems to be for the audience to make its own. He merely asks the question, "Why?" and in some instances states his opinion. He did exclude the UK, along with a few others, from the list of the Coalition of the Willing, but the point he was trying to make is that you can't really say you have a large number of countries willing to fight with you in coalition if some of these countries either don't have armies (Pahua) or are countries you just overthrew and therefore are just including more of your own army (Afghanistan).

Yes, it does slam Bush -- though not unfairly, as it uses Bush's own contradictory statements and his quite unartful dodging of questions as backup (all coming right from the horses mouth). It does question why Iraq was not perceived a threat to the US, had not been developing WMD's, nor did it have connections to Al Qaeda in 2000, yet post 9/11 and Afghanistan, Iraq suddenly has long been developing WMD's, has long had connections with Al Qaeda, and is an immediate threat to the US. So, for the first time in history, we unilaterally invade a sovereign nation that has never attacked the US and never killed a US citizen.

While Mr. Moore does narrate and, at times, state an opinion in this narration, I found myself listening to Bush himself, to Cheney, to Rumsfeld, to Rice, to Powell. I listened as these people damaged their own credibility.

So it is easy for the White House to sit back and say that it is not necessary to watch the movie to dismiss it, but they better start paying attention to this film. It is selling out... and selling out in places like Amarillo, Texas. It has been making figures to rival films playing on three times as many screens. People are watching.

Oh, I rarely say things in the absolute, so saying that I KNOW nothing would ever change my mind would be a bit of a strech, but I CAN see how that would be the impression.

The point I was making was:

If the Pope, the Countries of Germany, France and Russia, all combined didn't change my mind, then I doubt seriously that a person who has lowered the word "documentary" (again the true sad part of this whole discussion), to nothing more then an opinion peice, surely won't.

Hope this clears this up a bit.

If it scares you, I have no problem with that, but it scares me to think that the opposite is also true.

In your opinion that is. Frankly I have no problem at all seeing this as a documentary, though clearly one with a bias. I am further puzzled why anyone could assume this was not a documentary, in particular without even seeing it.

It's interesting, I have seen two right wing TV shows in the past few days interview people who attacked and dismissed F-9/11. In BOTH cases, the interviewee proceeded to mock Moore on a personal level, including in one case his weight at some length, and then they proceeded to point out all of the factual inacuracies in Bowling for Columbine. Neither was able to point out a single actual factual mistake in F-9/11. I found that very interesting.

Bowling for Columbine was a satirical opinion piece, involving a cartoon bit and a great deal of mockery, combined with a one-sided presentation of the facts. This movie is quite different. Moore is quite careful about differentiating between fact and his opinion.

If you don't want to see it fine, but dismissing its impact without seeing it is a bit nearsighted...



I'm sorry, I have no idea what that means.

Just a quick point about the term 'documentary.' I've seen several movie review places are careful to label this an 'op-ed documentary'. A movie does not need to be your typical History Channel, A&E, etc. documentary to be (correctly) labeled a 'documentary.'

Just a former movie buff correcting things