go see farenhiet 9/11

[august spies]

I was expecting a fair anti bush documentry, but what i saw was something much better. He hits the democrats beutifully and the facts and documents presented made very compelling arguments.

I should have known it was going to be good just buy the right wing respose to it. Just before leaving i decided to watch some corporate media, i think it was msnbc or fox, but anyway all they were doing was bashing the film, for an entire hour!.. I remember one criticism from somone who i assume never saw the film, he said "moore would never show pictures of wounded american soliders" (a criticism that moore was only foucses on slaughtered iraqis) But the film has a lot about wounded and killed american soliders, with plenty of footage.

Its at the point now where all they can do is use all their media power to lie about the film. But i think the truth is winning, I had to catch the 12am show because all the others were sold out, and it was the first film i saw where people appluaded at the end.

[Neutron]

And Moore stopped billing it as such when confronted by the LIBERAL media.

Why's an "anarchist" supporting Democrats? Just wondering..

And why won't Moore go on the O'Reilly Factor? Just curious..

Tron

[toyou444]

Although I do enjoy Moore's other films I have not seen this one yet. (Simply a matter of a bad weekend for me to go see a movie.) I do intend to see it though...for the same reason I listen to Hannity and Limbaugh and read "Modern World" and alt.fan.limbaugh...I liekt osee how the extreme members of both parties are reacting and then search for the truth somehwere in betweem.

Neutron, I may have had harsh words for you occasionally in the past but on the O'Reilly thing...I would not go on the show and he and I agree on a lot of things. Any of the talking heads on television, be they Liberal or conservative, don't really have discussions per se, as much as accusatory questioning with little or no time to answer the questions. I'm not saying that its wrong to completely avoid it, but most people realize it would be a hatchet job.

btw...after listening to Pittsburgh's new right wing talk radio station all day you know what I learned about Michael Moore? Not only is he fat, but he's a fat liar! LOL! I guess that fact is enough to cover actually disputing the items in the movie?

Isn't freedom of speech wonderful?

~ toyou

[august spies]

i dont care if you dont think its not a documentry, its a good film witch presents a lot of facts, inteviews, and op ed thought.

why is an anarchist supporting the democrats?? . In my post i appluaded the films criticism of the democrats.


because the oreally factor or any of those horrible corporate media propaganda shows have one goal, indoctrination and spreading state propaganda for rich people. period.

*GR and P & R forum rules violations in the form of personal attack deleted*

[Strelnikov]

What's the difference between Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" and Disney's "Snow White"?

Give up? Scroll down for the answer...



































One's a fairy tale...the other is a cartoon.

Strelnikov

[Cosmo_ac]

Strel, have you bothered to look at any of the information Moore presents in his movie? For that matter, have you even seen the movie?

[venray]

We,ve been back and forth about the "info" cos and yet no one has posted these "facts" for the others to review.

Strel posted some political humor is all.


Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

Well, i'm working on it Ray. There's a lot to look up, and search engines can only be so percise. I have found some info though, and will post that soon.

[venray]

I await your findings.........they will prove most interesting I am sure.:)

[buggs]

See World Net Daily report here:

Michael Moore film appeals to terrorists (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39012)

And the Distributor OK with Terrorist groups support:

Moore film distributor OK with terror support (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39079)

Also, Bill O'reiley talked about it in his talking points memo last night on his Fox Show The Factor (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124556,00.html) :

Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day"...

Not to belabor the issue, but the terrorist group Hezbollah says it would like to distribute Michael Moore's movie throughout the Middle East. Isn't that nice?

Perhaps Mr. Moore could put that endorsement on one of his advertisements, alongside the raves he got from some American movie critics. Something like, "'A stunning achievement,' says Hezbollah, 'not a bomb at all.'" That might be ridiculous. Hezbollah likes the movie.

And what Ray Bradburry thinks about Micheal Moore, especially for ripping off his title:

Ray Bradbury rips Michael Moore (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38776)

[venray]

All contraversy appeals to terrorists.

Moore is ok because contraversy makes him money, NOT because he supports terrorism. That you cant back up.

Ray has no copyrights to a title and is capitalizing on the contraversy himself to get a little more attention and money as well.

Only in a free society.....Wouldnt have it any other way.

Ray

[buggs]

Even 9/11 commision Liberal darling Richard Clarke's testimony, former White House counter-terrorism czar, contradicts what Moore quotes as fact in the film. The link is below, but when you click on it it starts to open the arcticl up, but then takes you to the main page. Therefore, I am posting the arcitcle as a quote below the link:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5C%5CSpecialReports%5 C%5Carchive%5C%5C200406%5C%5CSPE20040601a.html

When Bush-Bashers Collide? Moore's Film at Odds with Clarke Remarks
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 01, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - One of the central charges made by left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore in his upcoming, Bush-bashing film is being undermined by another critic of the president -- former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke.

Moore's upcoming film, Fahrenheit 911, points to President Bush's rumored relationship with Saudi officials as the motivating factor in the president allegedly allowing relatives of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country following the Sept.11, 2001 terror attacks.

But Clarke recently admitted that he alone approved the exit of the bin Laden kin -- damaging the key premise of Moore's film.

Chris Horner, a GOP strategist, finds irony in the fact that the credibility of Moore's film is being undermined by one of Bush's biggest critics even before the film is released in the United States.

"When self-promoting, Bush-hating conspiracy theorists collide," Horner said of Moore and Clarke.

"One self-promoting, Bush-hating conspiracy theorist (Clarke) proves the undoing of another Bush-hating conspiracy theorist (Moore)," Horner told CNSNews.com.

Moore has alleged in interviews promoting the film that Bush and his father, former president George H.W. Bush, had close ties to the Saudis, which led to the decision to help bin Laden's family leave the country following the terrorist attacks.

Clarke's sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission in March, describing how the FBI approved the flights for the bin Ladens and other Saudis to leave the U.S., may have strengthened that premise. But Clarke's interview with The Hill newspaper, published on May 26, contradicted that previous testimony.

The decision to approve the flights, Clarke admitted last week, had been his own. The request "didn't get any higher than me," he told The Hill .

"On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI," Clarke said of the plane flight carrying bin Laden's relatives.

"I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again," he added. The Saudis and bin Laden's relatives were flown from the U.S. out of fear for their safety following the terror attacks.

Clarke turned against the Bush administration and became a darling of the left earlier this year when he criticized the government's anti-terror policies. His book Against All Enemies : Inside America's War on Terror , detailed his frustrations working in the administration, and news clips of Clarke appear in Moore's documentary, according to film critics who have screened the movie.

But Moore's film relies in part on Clarke's original comments, the ones he has now contradicted.

According to a movie review by the BBC, one of the film's "chief accusations is Bush allowed planes to pick up 24 members of the bin Laden family and fly them out of the U.S. in the days following the attacks - when all other aircraft were grounded."

The BBC review states that the movie explores "the relationships between the Bush and bin Laden dynasties."

Fahrenheit 911 received a 10-minute standing ovation and the top award at the Cannes Film Festival in France in May. It is expected that the film will be released in the U.S. in July.

While promoting the documentary, Moore has not been shy in linking Bush's alleged "relationship" with the bin Laden family to the flight that took the bin Ladens and other Saudis from the U.S. following Sept. 11, 2001.

"So here is Bush trying to deal with everything on Sept. 11, 12 13th, you know. You remember, everybody remembers the total state of chaos and people, just everyone, all of us, discombobulated by the whole thing, and he had the time to be thinking -- what can I do to help the bin Ladens right now," Moore told Pacifica radio last October.

"And all of these elaborate plans were made, because [the Saudis] were spread out throughout the country, to be able to pick them up, get them to Boston and then get them to Paris," Moore said.

"While we are being told that the hunt is on for Osama bin Laden, what is really going on is when you got 24 bin Ladens here, (a disputed number) you know, none of them are asked for any kind of help. None of them are interrogated, and they are given the royal red carpet treatment in the days after September 11th. My question is why? What is really going on here?" Moore asked.

But Horner believes Moore's film will eventually be discredited.

"In his rush to ensure that no credit goes un-annexed, Clarke exposes Moore's rant as based on paranoia and the presumptions common among fever-swamp liberals that never survive the slightest encounter with facts," he said.

Horner sees Clarke's admission and its impact on the credibility of Fahrenheit 9/11 as just the latest setback for what he calls the "conspiratorial left" in the past year.

"First [former Democratic presidential candidate] Howard Dean implodes in a fury. Then Clarke bombs, and then the [Al] Franken/[Al] Gore political MoveOn-ment (MoveOn.org) lashes itself to the hilariously hapless [global warming disaster film] The Day After Tomorrow . And then there is the collective failure of [the liberal] Air America radio," Horner explained.

"Now Moore's movie's premises are revealed to be nothing more than huffing liberal anger. Every weapon in the pacifist arsenal has proven, fittingly, a dud," Horner charged.

[buggs]

In the film:

"NARRATOR: Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else? Perhaps the answer was in Houston, Texas. In 1997 while George W. Bush was Governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan bringing natural gas from the Caspian Sea. And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney: Halliburton."

Yeah Bush was Governor of Texas at the time, but that was it. Bush had nothing to do with the meeting. The Taliban was brought into the country by Unocal and cleared by the Clinton State Department.

But, according to a page on the BBC, the projects was stopped in 1998 (See here) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2016340.stm)):

The idea for such a pipeline has existed for a number of years - but the main stumbling block has been the situation in Afghanistan. The US company Unocal led a consortium in the 1990s which undertook feasibility studies, but it pulled out of the project in 1998.

This is again re-iterated in a statement on the Unocal page here:
http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm

[Cosmo_ac]

[quote]
Clarke's sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission in March, describing how the FBI approved the flights for the bin Ladens and other Saudis to leave the U.S., may have strengthened that premise. But Clarke's interview with The Hill newspaper, published on May 26, contradicted that previous testimony.


so, was he lying during the commision or after the commision?

[buggs]

Moore claims President Bush invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban so he could get an oil pipeline built. You've probably heard others parrot this allegation. A master of propaganda knows that if you repeat a lie often enough, people start to believe it.

In reality, Bush had supported Enron's plan to run pipes under the Caspian Sea and avoid Afghanistan. "Clinton was the one backing the rival Unocal plan to put them through Afghanistan," Hardy and Clarke observe.

From the book called "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" By David T. Hardy & Jason Clarke. You can by the book from it's publishers, Harper Collins, here:
http://www.harpercollins.com/catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060763957

Also from a newsmax.com article on the book, found here:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/23/165945.shtml

[Cosmo_ac]

you should take a look at this link Buggs.

http://corpwatch.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=1149


{quote}
There was little US press coverage of this announcement. Nor did the media refer to the fact that the pipeline consortium involved in the Baku-Ceyhan plan, led by the British oil company BP, is represented by the law firm of Baker & Botts. The principal attorney at this firm is James Baker III, secretary of state under Bush's father and chief spokesman for the 2000 Bush campaign during its successful effort to shut down the Florida vote recount.

[august spies]

still havent recieved one lie about this film. you dont seem to understand the difference between and opinion and a lie.

its moore opinion that the war in afghanistan could have had a lot to do with oil.

the facts he states (this is where the lie part would come in) are that taliban were welcome in florida and that unocal courted them and that unocal now basically owns their current dictator.

[venray]

Where does he say that this is his opinion August, or is it your opinion that it is his opinion.


Ray

[august spies]

thats an opinion because thats what it is. if i say george bush is a moron, thats an opinion. if i say he looks like a chimp thats also an opinion.

below is an excellent point by point criticism of the film, the full text of which (with resource links) can be found here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=5808&sectionID=15

The Theft of 2000 Election. Fahrenheit 9/11 begins with an implicit indictment of both Republicans and Democrats and ends with an implicit indictment of the system of inequality in the U.S. But in between, the film concentrates virtually all of its fire on the Bush crowd and the Republican Party.

Republicans stole the 2000 election with the spineless complicity of the Democrats. Not one Democratic Senator is willing to sign the appeal demanded by African American members of the House of Representatives. But why did the Democrats passively accept the massive disenfranchisement of Black voters in Florida (and other states) in 2000? Moore does not attempt to explain the Democrat's spinelessness. The answer lies in the fact that the Democrats colluded extensively in Black disenfranchisement. Democratic majorities in Congress and the Democratic president Bill Clinton repeatedly proposed and voted for legislation that resulted in the massive criminalization of African Americans. Christian Parenti wrote in an article, "The 'New' Criminal Justice System: State Repression from 1968 to 2001," Monthly Review, July 2001:

During his presidency, Clinton signed the 1994 Violent Crime Control And Law Enforcement Act, which offered up a cop's cornucopia of $30.2 billion in federal cash from which we got Clinton's one hundred thousand new police officers, scores of new prisons, and SWAT teams in even small New England towns…(In 1996) Clinton gave us the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which massively expanded the use of the death penalty and eviscerated federal habeas corpus The sad election year of 1996 also delivered the ideologically named "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act," which eliminated the undocumented person's right to due process and helped bring Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) funding up to four billion annually. These were the Clinton administration's demolition devices, strategically placed to take out what little remained for prisoners in the Bill of Rights.

These acts contributed to the continuing rapid expansion of the prison system, to the disproportionate incarceration of African Americans, and to their disenfranchisement as convicted felons. Whites make up over three-fourths of the violators of drug laws, but the criminal justice system has, for the past three decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, imprisoned millions of African Americans. Moreover, those prisoners have increasingly been subjected to the same kinds of torture that took place at Abu Ghraib, sometimes even by the very same guards! Neither Al Gore nor the 100 white Senators-Republicans as well as Democrats-who themselves supported this repressive racist legislation, were going to put their signature on the appeal of black Representatives. The Democrats were spineless because they were as guilty as the Republicans.

The U.S./Saudi Connection. This cozy relationship is much bigger than the family and business ties between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens that Michael Moore describes. Before the end of World War II, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the U.S. establishment as a whole decided that U.S. control of Saudi oil and U.S. protection of the Saudi royal family would be the essential linchpin of U.S. global hegemony in the post-war world (Michael Klare, "The Geopolitics of War," The Nation, 10/18/01 ). This strategic alliance did not begin with Vice President Cheney's secretive 2001 energy commission. It has been the unwavering policy of every Democratic and Republican President for sixty years. That helps to explain why the entire U.S. Government, including both houses of Congress, both political parties, and the corporate media signed on to Bush's plan for invading and occupying Iraq. Now that the policy has become a disaster, politicians and the media are quick to proclaim that they were misled by Bush's lies, but they knew the truth from the beginning.

The Bush/Bin Laden Terrorist Alliance. Like the U.S./Saudi alliance, the alliance between the U.S. and the international terrorist brigades now dubbed Al Qaeda has also been more than the corrupt money grab by Bush and his oil business cronies, as described in Fahrenheit 9/11. It too has been a bi-partisan strategy of the U.S. ruling class. It was begun by Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1979 as a way to draw the Soviet Union into a quagmire in Afghanistan. The CIA and its Pakistani counterpart trained tens of thousands of Islamic terrorists to invade and overthrow the pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan. Even before that, the U.S., under both Republican and Democratic Administrations during the 1970s, had undertaken the same strategy in Southern Africa. The U.S., together with its ally the apartheid government of South Africa, organized, trained, armed, and financed terrorist groups in Angola (UNITA) and Mozambique (RENAMO) to attack civilian populations and undermine unfriendly governments. And, during the 1980s, the U.S. did the same thing in Central America with the Nicaraguan Contras. In Central America and in Afghanistan, the U.S. partly financed these terrorist operations with profits from drug cartels run by the CIA's terrorist proxy forces. (Mahmood Mamdani, "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: An African Perspective."). Thus, it was not only Bush and his cronies but the entire U.S. establishment that created terrorist proxies as instruments of U.S. foreign policy during the past three decades. John Kerry knows all this quite well. He was on a Senate committee during the 1980s that investigated it.

Between the Bushes: Cinton's Iraq policies. It is also a fact that Bill Clinton's policies toward Iraq, which Fahrenheit 9/11 never discusses, were as murderous as those of George W. Bush. The Clinton Administration enforced the UN sanctions for eight years, which prevented Iraq from repairing its infrastructure that was destroyed by the US during the first Iraq war (1990-1991). Unable to repair its electrical power and water purification system, unable to import medicines and hospital supplies, Iraq became a death zone for its civilian population, especially its children and the elderly. UN studies found that approximately 5000 children were dying every month throughout the 1990s as a result of these sanctions. By the end of the decade, an estimated 1.2 million Iraqis died as a consequence of the U.S./British enforced sanctions. When Clinton's secretary of state Madeleine Albright was asked on television whether the death of half a million Iraqi children was too high a price to pay for U.S. opposition to the regime of Saddam Hussein, Albright replied that "the price was worth it." A Pentagon study early in the 1990s projected mass civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of the sanctions, so these genocidal results were foreseen and deliberate. Denying Iraqi civilians access to clean water was a form of biological and chemical warfare, a weapon of mass destruction unleashed against the Iraqi population under the imprimatur of the United Nations and enforced by regular bombing raids carried out by U.S. and British forces. Why didn't Michael Moore mention any of this in Fahrenheit 9/11? It certainly might help to explain why Iraqis did not welcome the U.S. as liberators, no matter how much they despised Saddam Hussein's regime. But it would also lead the audience to recognize that both Republicans and Democrats have pursued obscenely immoral policies toward Iraq.

A War for Empire, not just Bush's war. If Democrats signed on to the war not because they were spineless or misinformed, and if the war was fought in the collective interests of the entire U.S. establishment, not just the private interests of the Bush family and their friends, then what was really behind the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Addressing this question could obviously require a very lengthy essay, but we will try to summarize the central points. Numerous well informed critics of the war have written many excellent articles and books on this subject during the past year and one half. (We suggest Behind the Invasion of Iraq, by the Research Unit on Political Economy, from Mumbai, India, published by Monthly Review Press, as one of the best analyses of this subject.) Distilling what they have said, we come to the following analysis.

First, we define wars for imperial domination as wars undertaken as part of the profit driven struggle by capitalist ruling classes for control of raw materials, cheap labor, and markets. The U.S. seeks to consolidate its hold on the Middle East because that region is strategically the most important of all in U.S. efforts to maintain world domination in a period of global economic crisis and intensifying rivalry amongst the leading world powers. The Middle East contains two-thirds of all known petroleum supplies. Oil is the lifeblood of all advanced industrial economies and is crucial for the exercise of military power. Not only is the U.S. importing an increasing percentage of its oil (currently about 55%). More importantly, the economies of the European Union and Asia are increasingly dependent on oil imports from the Middle East. U.S. control over Middle East oil provides crucial leverage and influence over its competitors such as Germany, France, China, and Japan, who have very limited domestic supplies of oil and must import oil from the Middle East.

During the past three decades, the U.S. has declined economically relative to its major competitors. With neo-liberalism now being fully embraced by Russia and China, there are more competitors, and there is no communist enemy against whom the increasingly shaky trans-Atlantic alliance can unite. Thus, a declining U.S. hegemony faces increasing competition from its rivals in Europe and Asia. Most of the rest of the world more or less sees current global conflicts in this way, and thus they view the U.S. attempt to seize Iraq as an aggressive attempt by the U.S. to solve its worsening economic problems through military aggression. The U.S. attempt to prevent its competitors from gaining a foothold in the Iraqi oil business was clearly not in the interests of the French, German, Russian, Chinese, or Japanese, which explains why the U.S. could not get those governments to sign on to the U.S. seizure of Iraq, no matter how much bribery and intimidation the U.S. tried to apply.

The struggle to gain hegemony in the world capitalist system was at the root of the two world wars of the 20th century. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war not only for the maintenance of U.S. hegemony, but for the strengthening and enlarging of an Empire. That is something much bigger than the corrupt war profiteering of Halliburton or the sleazy relationships between the Saudi ruling class and the Bush family. It is much bigger than the ideological fantasies of the clique of neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. Michael Moore has revealed a limited aspect of a much larger problem. The Bush clique exemplifies the true character of capitalism in this period, but the problem is the system as a whole, not just a few arrogant corrupt liars.

Israel: Unmentioned in Fahrenheit 9/11. Michael Moore has spoken out against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and dedicated his most recent book to Rachel Corrie, the young American woman who was crushed to death last year by an Israeli bulldozer, or rather an American bulldozer driven by an Israeli, as she attempted to prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes and olive orchards. A film on U.S. policy in the Middle East, the war on terror, and the invasion and occupation of Iraq cannot give its audience an understanding of what is going on in the world without discussing the U.S./Israeli alliance.

Since the 1960s Israel has played a strategic role in helping the U.S. dominate the Middle East and protect the undemocratic Arab regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab countries. The U.S. provides Israel with billions of dollars of assistance annually and defends Israel against all criticisms and threats. Israel has a massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, including several hundred nuclear weapons. Israel occupies the territory of neighboring countries in defiance of numerous United Nations resolutions. Israel is currently working extensively in Iraq with the Kurdish minority in the northern part of the country. Much Arab anger at the U.S. is a result of U.S. policy toward Israel. The U.S., in its brutal occupation of Iraq, has in many ways emulated Israeli tactics toward Palestinians. The barbarism inherent in the twin occupations of the Middle East, Israel of Palestine and the U.S. of Iraq, is the source of "terrorism" in and from that region.

Both Bush and Kerry and the rest of the leadership of both parties support the cruelest Israeli policies against the Palestinians, including Israel's current efforts to build an apartheid style wall to imprison millions of Palestinians within shrinking impoverished ghettos. Michael Moore may have felt that the inclusion of any criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel would have been a kiss of death for Fahrenheit 9/11 and his efforts to defeat George W. Bush. However, the exclusion of this subject helps sustain the broader injustice of U.S. policies throughout the Middle East and paves the way for a Kerry Administration to continue the policies of all U.S. Administrations toward Israel.

Now that we have laid out these criticisms of Fahrenheit 9/11, the reader may object that a two hour documentary could not possibly have educated its audience on all of the issues we have raised in this review. That is a fair comment. But Michael Moore could have made a much better attempt to expose the role of both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. It does a disservice to the anti-war movement in the U.S. and around the world to misdirect our anger away from the system as a whole onto a single ruling class family or one political faction of the ruling class. It particularly does a disservice to the tens of millions of oppressed people around the world who will continue to be assaulted by the U.S. bid for global domination under a Democratic Kerry Administration. It encourages us to devote too much energy to getting out the vote on one day, instead of building a mass movement that fights every day against the Empire and its horrors.

Finally, it could be objected that, if Michael Moore had made the documentary film we wanted, it would not be showing in movie houses all over the United States. We readily agree. And that tells us a lot about the way the American establishment limits the range of acceptable political criticism in the U.S. and funnels protest into the corporate-controlled Republican and Democratic Parties.

[buggs]

Michael Isikoff deconstucts Moore's Farenheit 9/11 in Newsweek Magazine, June 28th , 2004 edition, article titled "Under the Hot Lights". Isikoff calls the movie a "melange of investigative journalism, partisan commentary and conspiracy theories." Read atrticle below:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek

MSNBC'S Joe Scarborough on the film: "Fahrenheit 9/11" distorts the truth. Deceit and deception is breathtaking"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5296236/

MSNBC'S Lisa Myers The NBC Nightly News' Truth Squad on June 25th "Moore says he hopes this film influences the November election, but the White House is basically ignoring it....In most minds it would not meet the standards expected of a documentary. It's satire.". I can not find a transcript of the report on either the MSNBC or NBC website, but an article can be found on her report here on the National Journal here (You have to go halfway down the page to see the article on it):
http://nationaljournal.com/ververs.htm

[august spies]

The Bush-bin Laden family connection.

Moore's film suggests that Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family—principally through Bush's father's relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president's father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group's Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family—who own one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms—had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton's former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group "gained" from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore's movie: the firm's $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.



um where is the lie here? The only deception is see if from the author of this garbage. the entire carlyle group is full of greedy rich, imperialist, assholes. i dont care if its aruthur levitt or george bush. I also know that they made millions off of 9/11 thats a fact stated in mooores film. I honestly dont care what or how many obscene weapons systems didnt get built because so many of them already did.

[venray]

You are right. Moore does not lie when he brings up the connection with the Binladin family. Here merely leaves out a few important details. Such as the fact that the family itself wanted as little to do with Osama as possible to the degree that they began spelling their last name differently.

They denounced Osama on many occasions before 9 11 as well as after. They wanted only to run the business and make a lot of money. It would have been totally against their interests to support terrorist activities and give up their very comfortable lives.

So by having ties to this family, would it not make it easier to get reliable information that may have been beneficial to our keeping tabs on him? Perhaps, or perhaps not, but in no way does it mean that the Bush family wanted a war in order to profit.

Moore has given us many "facts" in the movie. What he hasnt done is included pertinent info surrounding these facts. This is what slants the view of the film and why it is dangerous in my opinion to take what he says as gospel. He misleads and misdirects brilliantly as most hollywood directors do.

It is also why I have said to others "research his facts". Dont just look them up to see if they are true. Research the details surrounding these "facts" and you may see a few things that Moore neglected to point out so that he could make his accusations stick.


Ray
This is just one little snippet that led me to further research on the family. I will post much more later tonight after work.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011112fa_FACT3

[Jimblast]

*Rule violations removed*

[august spies]

ven i really think you should see the film, because obviously you havent and you dont know exactly what your talking about.

moore does touch on the issue of osama and the rest of the bin ladens, and proves a point that even thought they denounced him they still had contacts with him. one example he uses was that osama was present at a bin laden family wedding in afganistan i think in the year 2000. Point being its not like ties are completely severed.

But i think the most important point is the buisness connection with the saudis and the bin ladens. it clearly shows that bush has more in common with them than the average american. The fact that they are connected one way or the other to osama just adds insult to injury.

Bush doesnt want a war in order to profit??? i suggest reading up on the history of us invervention and the corporate connnection. its all about profit and nothing but.

[Cosmo_ac]

Problem is ray....that is that famuily members atended his( Osama's) son's wedding, and if i remember right that was after he was suspected or believed to be part of terorist attacks. doesn't seem they cut all ties...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/18/osama.brother/index.html

Seems they all haven'ent given up on him. And then there's the Saudi funding of the 9/11 terrorists...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/26/saudi.money.trail/index.html


Even your own post clip suggests that there are those of the Saudi and Bin laden origins that are willing to fund him.

[venray]

Indeed as I have said...The conections are there, but to assume that the Bush family or any other American business directly supports Osama or other terrorists is simply ludicrous.

There is a lot of other research out there. I only posted that one quickly before going off to work. I encourage those looking up "facts" to do the research yourselves.

August..I have alrweady stated that I will not see the movie and give money to Moore's cause. Not gonna happen. What he says is not anywhere near as important as the way he spins it.

Of course there are some family ties, but to what extent. Moore proves nothing. He makes statements, but none are proven. If you take the time to look you can see that for yourself, or you can take what Moore says as gospel as many do. The choice is yours to make.

Now as to moderating....

Jim and August you have both been duely warned and as of this moment if either of you break the rules and call each other names or make mention of the lack of brains or any other such nonsense and I shall have you suspended from this forum.

You can keep your personal beefs with one another private and comments directed to mods (concerning moderation not responding to posts) should be done in private as well, not posted within the discussion as it is off topic.

No more chances guys...play nice or dont play here.

Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

Support? Well, i think we all know there is no deffinite proof because if there was there would be arrestes handed out. However i think we can't argue that fact that as president, Bush can, and has, had information surpressed in the past. There is also information that suggests the Bush purposfully ignored information that might have suggested that there were no WMD in Iraq or connections involving Saudi officials. Also Ray, you can't ignore the long term ties of both oil and Saudi and bush connections. Purhaps they didn't suport the 9/11 attack, but certainly it was bushes decision to wage the war in Iraq, and i don't think anybody can argue that they (bush and Saudi) have made any proffit from this war. I'll be posting some links soon when i can.

[venray]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
There is also information that suggests the Bush purposfully ignored information that might have suggested that there were no WMD in Iraq or connections involving Saudi officials.


Also Ray, you can't ignore the long term ties of both oil and Saudi and bush connections.


I can ignore them. These ties have no bearing as far as I am concerned on the present day situation.

I say please show proof that we invaded Iraq BECAUSE of ties with the Saudis....or please dont post such accusations. I do not believe such proof exists and therefor the statement is meaningless.

As for the ignoring of info on WMDS...What information? From what source? Where has this supposed info been published?

Again these statements have been posted before in other threads and still nothing has been shown to back them up by anyone. Until it is I say that the statement that the Bush Administration(or Tony Blair) ignored such info is an irresponsible statement at best.

Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

You should know by now Venray, i never post accusations unless i;ve seen them before. I never bookmarked them because i never thought this conversation would come up. I will certainly look into them, as i know simply giving my word that i've seen them won't do the trick.

[venray]

Both Bush and Kerry and the rest of the leadership of both parties support the cruelest Israeli policies against the Palestinians, including Israel's current efforts to build an apartheid style wall to imprison millions of Palestinians within shrinking impoverished ghettos. Michael Moore may have felt that the inclusion of any criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel would have been a kiss of death for Fahrenheit 9/11 and his efforts to defeat George W. Bush. However, the exclusion of this subject helps sustain the broader injustice of U.S. policies throughout the Middle East and paves the way for a Kerry Administration to continue the policies of all U.S. Administrations toward Israel.

Now we are getting somewhere. A kiss of death to F 911 and EFFORTS to defeat George Bush.

The only reason that this movie was made (other than to make Moore rich) and why it was slanted the way in which it was. I agree totally.



The rest of your post raises some very good points for discussion...

We as a nation have always had ties with those who would serve our best interests at the time. Democrats and republicans alike have done this throughout history.

We then break these ties and withdraw support when it no longer suits our purpose.

This is why we find ourselves in the mess we are in today. First we support then we abandon creating great feelings of resentment not thinking that any harm will come from it. No one would dare....

We had a wake up call with 9-11 (the event...not the movie) Now..do we dump our ties with Israel to appease those we have offended for years and create yet another enemy? Do we continue down the path we are currently on putting out a show of strengh to intimidate? Or do we run for cover and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world
and slowly demolish ourselves from within?

I have no answers... I dont believe our politicians do either. I hope someone else does.

[venray]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
You should know by now Venray, i never post accusations unless i;ve seen them before. I never bookmarked them because i never thought this conversation would come up. I will certainly look into them, as i know simply giving my word that i've seen them won't do the trick.

Cos..I know you have seen or heard of these conversations...so have I, but nowhere within them is any proof that the accusations have merit. That is what I am asking for. Proof that Bush or Blair ignored info that stated there were no WMD's in Iraq before we went to war.

I have seen no such proof presented anywhere within any of the research I have been doing. If I find it I will post it, but I do not believe it exists.


Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

I found this a very interesting read, and surprisingly nuetral ray. I believe you'll find it the same.

http://www.thornwalker.com:16080/ditch/snieg_wmd_main.htm

Bit of a long read, but worth it.

[venray]

Cos..I have read it a little way through and briefly skimmed the rest. you are right as I find it interesting and will devote more time to it when I clear my head of other matters. ;)

Just didnt want you to think I was ignorin' ya.

Thanks for the link.


Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

No prob Ray. I have to say i think i lucked out when i found this link. Seriously it so incredibly well written i don't think anybody can ignore some of the arguements it makes.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Neutron
Why's an "anarchist" supporting Democrats? Just wondering..

And why won't Moore go on the O'Reilly Factor? Just curious..

Tron

Two answers for ya: your definition of anarchist is awfully broad. Moore's a fanatic, but not an anarchist. In fact, it would seem that he just wants our government to have a bit less of a Saudi connection, if you know what I mean. The less Saudi influenced we become, the more order there will be. So, actually, you could say the guy wants more order, not less....

He won't go on the O'Reilly Factor because O'Reilly is a dick. Please don't tell me you're the kind of guy that knocks Moore for being a fanatic but praises O'Reilly. That's about as hypocritical as you can be. I might like Moore's work, but at least I admit he's fanatical....

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by buggs
See World Net Daily report here:

Michael Moore film appeals to terrorists (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39012)

And the Distributor OK with Terrorist groups support:

Moore film distributor OK with terror support (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39079)

Also, Bill O'reiley talked about it in his talking points memo last night on his Fox Show The Factor (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124556,00.html) :



And what Ray Bradburry thinks about Micheal Moore, especially for ripping off his title:

Ray Bradbury rips Michael Moore (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38776)

Fight lies with lies, eh? Good technique, but try facts next time....

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by venray1
Both Bush and Kerry and the rest of the leadership of both parties support the cruelest Israeli policies against the Palestinians, including Israel's current efforts to build an apartheid style wall to imprison millions of Palestinians within shrinking impoverished ghettos. Michael Moore may have felt that the inclusion of any criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel would have been a kiss of death for Fahrenheit 9/11 and his efforts to defeat George W. Bush. However, the exclusion of this subject helps sustain the broader injustice of U.S. policies throughout the Middle East and paves the way for a Kerry Administration to continue the policies of all U.S. Administrations toward Israel.

Now we are getting somewhere. A kiss of death to F 911 and EFFORTS to defeat George Bush.

The only reason that this movie was made (other than to make Moore rich) and why it was slanted the way in which it was. I agree totally.



The rest of your post raises some very good points for discussion...

We as a nation have always had ties with those who would serve our best interests at the time. Democrats and republicans alike have done this throughout history.

We then break these ties and withdraw support when it no longer suits our purpose.

This is why we find ourselves in the mess we are in today. First we support then we abandon creating great feelings of resentment not thinking that any harm will come from it. No one would dare....

We had a wake up call with 9-11 (the event...not the movie) Now..do we dump our ties with Israel to appease those we have offended for years and create yet another enemy? Do we continue down the path we are currently on putting out a show of strengh to intimidate? Or do we run for cover and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world
and slowly demolish ourselves from within?

I have no answers... I dont believe our politicians do either. I hope someone else does.

Now... perhaps, you all see why many of us desire to move to Canada and places like it. There are plenty of countries in the First World that don't get themselves into messes like this. The problem with this country is that we seem to enjoy imperialism. Don't get me wrong; we've helped the world in many ways, but we spend almost as much time fucking with the world as we do helping it. If we ever get someone into office that truly knows what he/she's doing, we as a nation will end our sickening alliances with Israel and the Saudis. Quite frankly, you can't trust any of these countries in the Middle East, because they're all so damn corrupt in their governments. People like Sharon almost make Bush look like a saint by comparison....

[venray]

I believe I answered that last one in another thread Mac (again we are in agreement).

I said that of course the terrorist groups would support Moores film as they support ANYTHING contraversial that can disrupt the US.

This in NO WAY means that Moore supports the terrorist groups.To suggest that Moore is at fault because a whacko group supports him is wrong at best.

Ray Bradbury is an aging author that has no copyright to title (cant do that) who is taking advantage of the situation to add to his 15 minutes of fame and perhaps stimulate some book sales of his own. Nothing more.

(and dont get me wrong, as I like him and his books...he is just way off base here)


Ray

[buggs]

Fight lies with lies, eh? Good technique, but try facts next time....

Okay. And what facts would those be. I never said that Moore supports terrorist groups. I merely posted links to sources reporting that the group Hezbollah says it would like to distribute the film throughout the Middle East. That is all I did. I am not trying to be snide, or start a flame war, or say that your wrong. I am just curious as to what facts I am missing out on? And could you please show me said facts?

[Cosmo_ac]

Hey Ven, have you read that post yet?

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
I found this a very interesting read, and surprisingly nuetral ray. I believe you'll find it the same.

http://www.thornwalker.com:16080/ditch/snieg_wmd_main.htm

Bit of a long read, but worth it.
A highly interesting read indeed, cosmo! Everyone should read that, it's reall worth the effort and time! :cool:

[venray]

Pm ed ya cos....:D

[august spies]

buggs im sure you support the israeli occupation of palestine, and also the israeli occupation of lebanon (which is why hezbollah was formed, and they won by the way) with billion of dollars in guns tanks and bulldozers. And your scared of some words?

[buggs]

I am not happy about the Isreali occupation. I think it was very wrong of the league of nations in the 40's, aftter the war to lie to those people in the region. They told them that they neded to leave their houses for 2 weeks, and they could come back. after 2 weeks the league of nations stole the land and called it Israel. I think that is wrong. But I also think that Hezzbollah and their tactics are wrong. What they are doing is not right. Going into a restaurant with a bomb strapped onto you and killing innocents is not right.

[august spies]

buggs i think your getting your vocab mixed up. Hezzbollah is not Hamas. Hezzbollah is a lebanese guerilla movment that formed in southern lebanon to end the israeli occupation of that land, and after many years of struggle (using for the most part guerilla tactics) they pretty much won.

[august spies]

o yea the point:

from your previous posts and from your sources of "information" i just assumed you were a strong backer of the republicrats. and they are certainly the strongest backers of the israeli occupation, even more so than the israeilis.

[buggs]

buggs im sure you support the israeli occupation of palestine, and also the israeli occupation of lebanon

I was responding to that and how the Israeli's came to occupy the land in the first place. I do not agree how that was done by the Leauge of Nations, which became the United Nations, back in the 40's shortly after WW2. I am upset that Israel deliberately attacked one of our ships, the U.S.S. Liberty, in the late 60's during the Six Day War between Israel and Egypt, and then said it was a mistake, even though radio transmissions and living witness from the ship said that those planes knew it was an American ship in international waters. And on top of that, we were their allies. See CNN article about it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/23/liberty.attack/

But something has to be done to stop the killing of innocents on both sides.

i just assumed you were a strong backer of the republicrats. and they are certainly the strongest backers of the israeli occupation, even more so than the israeilis.

Huh? How can the Israeli's not be for their own occupation? Actually, and historically, both party's have backed Israel. However, President Bush is the only American President, the only one, who has called for a Palestinian State since this whole mess began back in the 40's (See his speach here http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2002/0625bushspeech.htm ). You can reference this in his interview that he gave to Irish Reporter Carole Coleman for IRE a few weeks back. It is the very same interview that the reporter kept asking Bush a question, and then cut him off while he was trying to answer, so he kept asking her to "Please let me answer the question you just asked before going on to the next one".

The Reporter interupting Pres. Bush in the interview is reported on Yahoo news here:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/040626/43/2en0r.html