Well of course it was biased to make a point. Naturally any documentary maker is going to bias the film strongly in one direction to make the point. Michael Moore did not go into the Iraqi prisons to film, no - but he was simply trying to make the point that perhaps - just perhaps - Iraq was not the backwards, 3rd world, repressed, crumbling country the U.S. made it out to be before the war. And if this were true, how true was the U.S. in telling us how rotten of a dictator Saddam Hussein was? All those stories of torture, imprisonment, was it all really true? Was Saddam THAT bad? Again, I believe he was evil, but I do question the validity of the picture that was painted of Saddam in the U.S. media/government.SuzQ said:STOP what you're doing and go got FahrenHYPE 9/11!
....to do a side-by-side "TRUTH COMPARISON", my friend. I have not watched EITHER DVD & do not plan to. Bush won, I'm happy.
However, I've seen several examples of Moore's "truth", which is to say he cuts, pastes, & edits clips together. So, no - it's not a "lie", just clever editing. Perhaps The Donald should hire him for The Apprentice next season.
With two family members who are military, this (and the fact that he deplorably makes fun of Bush's actions on 9/11 when even Hillary CLINTON defended Bush on that to Diane Sawyer) is shockingly in poor taste & ruined any valid point for me that Moore may have had against the war in Iraq. His tactics were disgusting, absolutely disgusting. This is from someone who voted for Gore in 2000, too.
Sorry - but you need to see BOTH DVD's before you decide, especially as a Christian, that Michael Moore is "brilliant" & "truthful". He made an effective argument against the greed in automotive companies & gun control, but should've stayed away from a hate-filled attack on a U.S. President STILL in office, about a war STILL in progress that our soldiers continue to bravely fight for.
Oh, well - it didn't work & the outrage may have even garnered Bush MORE votes as a result. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
That's just one aspect of the film. But the basic facts still remain. Doesn't it strike you as just a *little* weird that Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton - one of the largest energy companies - and now he's VP of the U.S.? That Halliburton was handed noncompete contracts in Iraq? That he was previously friends with Bush? That Hallliburton subsidiaries were already doing business in Iraq before the war? That Cheney was previously Secretary of Defense during Gulf War 1? That Halliburton was accused of overcharging the government? Sorry, but there are just too many strange coincidences and happenstances here to simply pass it off as nonsense.
But I simply fail to understand the logic behind the attacks on Michael Moore. The people who bash his movie rarely cite any facts. All you hear is ad-hominem attacks and that the movie is simply a lie. I suppose that's all MM detractors have to say - he's just a huge liar, he hates Bush, and he hates America. And anyone who possibly likes his movie is quite the same.
About the dead Iraqi civilian scene, I don't remember how it cut so directly to the U.S. soldiers whipping it up. But many U.S. soldiers interviewed DID question why the heck they were there. A few even thought it was definitely for the oil. I DOUBT Michael Moore could have manipulated THAT. Some also agreed that there were no WMDs; others expalined how they felt about war in general. But I don't buy the argument really that Moore is trying to make the troops look bad. That would be like saying "COPS" makes police officers look bad. It doesn't hold water.
This kind of naivite is sad, really. Most people who criticize Fahrenheit 9/11 haven't even seen the film. They are afraid their world (and perhaps even their faith) would be ROCKED, and that they would be ostracized for any new views they would take on. The pyschology surrounding this is strong, very strong.
I did check out that other FahernHype website. I tried to view the trailer (slow connection, blah!) and was not very impressed. All I heard was refutations with no sources to back them up. And Zell Miller? The same crazy psychotic Zell Miller we saw at the Republican Convention? Gimme a break! Of course we know what he's going to say. Bring in the independent guys, then maybe I'll listen.
The very first thing the Republicans do when faced with opposition is discredit that opposition with personal attacks and falsehoods. Nowadays the Repubs don't even have to make much of an effort. Their citizen supporters do plenty for the cause.
Upvote
0
I don't think that's what he meant in that interview with Barbara Walters, LOL! He meant that the Dems need a CELEBRITY next time around if they want to get more votes, as he had finally admitted to the fact that Kerry was a HORRIBLE choice. She also asked him if his movie & The Passion were what people based their choice on. He answered, "Well, Barbara, GOD will win that one every time". 
