Fahrenheit 9/11

timusic76 said:

It appears Michael Moore doesn't fear God. However, we can pray for him.

Click to expand...

It appears that Bush doesn’t fear God. Anyone who votes for this man after the damage that he has done is insane. Have you seen this movie? Can you disprove anything that Michael Moore said? If so, what? If not, why do you support this man?

Diakonos said:

It appears that Bush doesn’t fear God. Anyone who votes for this man after the damage that he has done is insane. Have you seen this movie? Can you disprove anything that Michael Moore said? If so, what? If not, why do you support this man?

Click to expand...

MSNBC - More Distortions From Michael Moore

http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn

http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

The first link is a Newsweek Article.
The second link, interestingly enough, contains links that are pro and con Fahrenheit 911, so they are not afraid of people getting opinions from both sides.

The third link is spinsanity.org, run by three progressive Democrats, so I trust what they say concerning this movie. In fact, look up "topics" and go to Michael Moore, they have articles also on Bowling for Columbine.

I find it amazing that we always find someone to blame, even if we know it was them or not, instead of the culprit. Why do we always look for someone to blame instead of fixing a problem right away? That always bothered me. Oh well.

daydreamergurl15 said:

I find it amazing that we always find someone to blame, even if we know it was them or not, instead of the culprit. Why do we always look for someone to blame instead of fixing a problem right away? That always bothered me. Oh well.

Click to expand...

People want immediate answers. Even if the initial answers turn out to be wrong, the fact that there's someone to point the finger at instead of admitting we don't have a real clue yet still sets people at ease, even if it's at the cost of the accused party. Remember Richard Jewel and the Olympic bombing? I'm not saying that it's right, but that's my theory.

I notice no one has responded to the articles I've posted concerning this movie. Any thoughts or opinions on their veracity? Even if you think they are bogus, I would like to hear about it. If you think they are truthful, and you are a fan of the movie, well, I can understand your silence.

Would it be more helpful if I copied and pasted the articles into my post, instead of just posting a link.

To be fair, here are a couple of links in favor of the movie.

http://fahrenheit911facts.blogspot.com/

http://fahrenheit_fact_check.blogspot.com/

Diakonos said:

Can you disprove anything that Michael Moore said? If so, what? If not, why do you support this man?

Click to expand...

Anyone can disprove a good bit of what is in this propaganda piece. You could do it yourself if you did very simple research on many of the major points which Moore tries his best to present.

Even Time magazine had a blurb in the past issue setting straight a few of his major points.

The thing with this film is that most of it is NOT straight up lies (even though there ARE a few blatant lies in the film), but rather that the way that he presents his points are done so in a way so as to lead the viewer to accept the point that he WANTS to be truth.

If nothing more, Moore is one of the best at spinning truths, into what he wants them to be to help him make the points, that he wants to actually be true...when they are not...if that makes any sense to you.

Patdoggydogg said:

No, im claiming that people should not say something without any knowlage about it.

Click to expand...

I agree!

Now if only we could get that through Moore's head.

otnemeMMemento said:

Anyone can disprove a good bit of what is in this propaganda piece. You could do it yourself if you did very simple research on many of the major points which Moore tries his best to present.

Even Time magazine had a blurb in the past issue setting straight a few of his major points.

The thing with this film is that most of it is NOT straight up lies (even though
I have posted this question on about 3 discussion forums, and nobody can answer this question. They simply direct me to biased links that criticize this film (as if I haven't taken the initiative to do that on my own already), or give me vague answers like the one you gave. A fact is a fact, whether not you think Moore put his own spin on it or not. Can you tell me what the "blatant lies" were in this film? That's what I want to know.
there ARE a few blatant lies in the film), but rather that the way that he presents his points are done so in a way so as to lead the viewer to accept the point that he WANTS to be truth.

If nothing more, Moore is one of the best at spinning truths, into what he wants them to be to help him make the points, that he wants to actually be true...when they are not...if that makes any sense to you.

Click to expand...

I have posted this question on about 3 discussion forums, and nobody can answer this question. They simply direct me to biased links that criticize this film (as if I haven't taken the initiative to do that on my own already), or give me vague answers like the one you gave. A fact is a fact, whether not you think Moore put his own spin on it or not. Can you tell me what the "blatant lies" were in this film? That's what I want to know.

Diakonos said:

I have posted this question on about 3 discussion forums, and nobody can answer this question. They simply direct me to biased links that criticize this film (as if I haven't taken the initiative to do that on my own already), or give me vague answers like the one you gave. A fact is a fact, whether not you think Moore put his own spin on it or not. Can you tell me what the "blatant lies" were in this film? That's what I want to know.

Click to expand...

But I have answered this question. You obviously ignored this post that I made, quoted below. As I said, I do not consider Newsweek a biased source (at least not in favor of conservative politics", the blogspot and Dave Koppel, maybe. However, as I said before, spinsanity.org IS RUN BY PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS. They have multiple posts bashing President Bush, so if they do have an agenda, it is not in favor of conservative politics.

You can't ask for evidence that Moore is lying, then dismiss every single link that answers your question just because you see it as "biased."

I don't know what you are wanting here. You dismiss anything said by any sites showing even a remote hint of right-wing bias (yet you have no problem accepting as fact what Moore says, apparently if something has left-wing bias, that is okay). Are you basing right-wing bias solely on the fact that they point out falsehoods in Moore's work? If so, that is some circular reasoning. "I don't trust the sites that bash Moore's work because they are right-wing. Why are they right-wing? Because they bash Moore's work."

Also, I don't consider a site (fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com) that has 32 posts, with some directed at specific aspects of the movie, "vague."

Here, to save you the trouble, I will paste content from spinsanity.org and Newsweek myself. Check the next two posts.

sad astronaut said:

MSNBC - More Distortions From Michael Moore

http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn

http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

The first link is a Newsweek Article.
The second link, interestingly enough, contains links that are pro and con Fahrenheit 911, so they are not afraid of people getting opinions from both sides.

The third link is spinsanity.org, run by three progressive Democrats, so I trust what they say concerning this movie. In fact, look up "topics" and go to Michael Moore, they have articles also on Bowling for Columbine.

Click to expand...

from spinsanity.org
<<<<
Fahrenheit 9/11:
The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn

By Brendan Nyhan
July 2, 2004

Michael Moore's career as a rabble-rousing populist has been marked by a frequent pattern of dissembling and factual inaccuracy. He distorted the chronology of his first movie, "Roger & Me"; repeatedly peddled the myth that the Bush administration gave $43 million to the Taliban; published two books, Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country?, that were riddled with factual errors and distortions; and won an Academy Award for "Bowling for Columbine," a documentary based on a confused and often contradictory argument that features altered footage of a Bush-Quayle campaign ad, a misleading presentation of a speech by National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston, and other factual distortions.

With his new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which won the prestigious Palme D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival and was #1 at the US box office last week, Moore has surged to new prominence -- and come under increasing scrutiny. His staff has made much of elaborate fact-checking that was reportedly conducted on the film. And fortunately, it appears to be free of the silly and obvious errors that have plagued Moore's past work, such as the claim in Stupid White Men that the Pentagon planned to spend $250 billion on the Joint Strike Fighter in 2001, a sum that represented over 80 percent of the total defense budget request for the year.

However, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is filled with a series of deceptive half-truths and carefully phrased insinuations that Moore does not adequately back up. As Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum and others have noted, the irony is that these are the same tactics frequently used by the target of the film, George W. Bush. Moore and his chief antagonist have more in common than viewers might think.

The 2000 Florida recount

Reviewing the 2000 election during the opening of the film, Moore uses a quote from CNN legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin to make a deeply misleading suggestion about the results of the media recounts conducted in Florida:But the recount conducted by a consortium of media organizations found something quite different, as Newsday recently pointed out. If the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had gone ahead, the consortium found that Bush would have won the election under two different scenarios: counting only "undervotes," or taking into account the reported intentions of some county electoral officials to include "overvotes" as well. During the CNN appearance from which Moore draws the clip, reporter Candy Crowley explained that Toobin's analysis assumed the statewide consideration of "overvotes," which was not a sure thing, though there are indications that Leon County Circuit Court judge Terry Lewis, who was supervising the recount, might have directed counties to consider them.

The Saudi flights

In another scene, Moore suggests that members of Osama Bin Laden's family and other Saudis were able to fly out of the country while air traffic was grounded after September 11. After an initial report in Newsweek inaccurately characterized the scene, saying it had made a direct claim to that effect, Moore's staff replied with a legalistic parsing. The film does accurately date the Saudi flights out of the country to "after September 13" as they claim (flights leaving the country resumed on the 14th), but Moore does not take the important step of explaining the meaning of this date in the film:Given that Moore states that "In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded," how are viewers to know that this description did not include the Saudi flights out of the country? The "after September 13th" clause may show that Moore's claim was technically accurate, but it leaves viewers with the distinct impression that the Bin Ladens left the country before others were allowed to.

Saudi investments and business relationships

Moore also uses the power of insinuation to play on the relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens. The facts are thin, but that doesn't stop him from making ominous suggestions about the connections between the two.

After discussing the September 11 attacks, Moore presents clips from an interview between Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar and CNN's Larry King in which Bandar describes Osama Bin Laden as a "simple and very quiet guy." Moore then intones the following over video of Bush in a Florida classroom after being told of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center:"Just happened" to have a business relationship? What does Moore mean? He doesn't say precisely, of course, but he draws a series of tenuous and often circumstantial links between Bin Laden family investments and Bush's actions as President.

For instance, Moore shows that the White House blacked out the name of another Texas Air National Guard pilot who was suspended along with Bush - James R. Bath - in service records released earlier this year. He suggests that the White House was not concerned about privacy and instead wanted to hide Bath's links to Bush:Moore notes that Bath was retained by Salem Bin Laden, and describes Bush's founding of the Arbusto oil company. James Moore, an author, appears next, saying in an interview that "there's no indication" Bush Sr. funded Arbusto and that the source of the firm's investments is unknown. Michael Moore then piles on the innuendo in his narration:This phrasing suggests that Bath invested Bin Laden family money in Arbusto. But as Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball note in an online Newsweek column and Matt Labash points out in a Weekly Standard article on the film, Bath has stated this investment was his money, not the Bin Ladens'. Moore presents no evidence to the contrary.

The film also notes investments in United Defense, a military contractor, by the Carlyle Group, a firm that Bush and his father have been involved with which counts members of the Bin Laden family among its investors. He states:Moore's phrasing suggests that the Bin Ladens profited from the post-Sept. 11 buildup with the United Defense IPO but were forced to withdraw after the stock sale. However, Labash notes that the Bin Ladens withdrew before the initial filing, not afterward, missing the big payday Moore insinuates that they received.

Finally, Moore drops a big number - $1.4 billion - claiming "That's how much the Saudi royals and their associates have given the Bush family, their friends and their related businesses in the past three decades," adding that "$1.4 billion doesn't just buy a lot of flights out of the country. It buys a lot of love." But Isikoff and Hosenball show that nearly 90% of that total comes from contracts awarded by the Saudi government to BDM, a defense contractor owned by Carlyle. But when the contracts were awarded and BDM received the Saudi funds, Bush Sr. had no official involvement with the firm, though he made one paid speech and took an overseas trip on its behalf. He didn't actually join Carlyle's Asian advisory board until after the firm had sold BDM. And though George W. Bush had previously served on the board of another Carlyle company, he left it before BDM received the first Saudi contract. As usual, the connections are loose and circumstantial at best.

>>>>

I can't post the whole article, there is not enough room, go to http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html to read the rest.

The Newsweek/MSNBC article had too many pictures and adds to copy and paste the text, I didn't want to take the time. It also focused on more of the innuendo with the intent to deceive, rather than what you are looking for.

sad astronaut said:

The Newsweek/MSNBC article had too many pictures and adds to copy and paste the text, I didn't want to take the time. It also focused on more of the innuendo with the intent to deceive, rather than what you are looking for.

Click to expand...

I only have 1/2 mins

See www.movieparables.com for good expose on Moore's deceptiveness

Oh, just ignore this.

sad astronaut said:

But I have answered this question. You obviously ignored this post that I made, quoted below. As I said, I do not consider Newsweek a biased source (at least not in favor of conservative politics", the blogspot and Dave Koppel, maybe. However, as I said before, spinsanity.org IS RUN BY PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS. They have multiple posts bashing President Bush, so if they do have an agenda, it is not in favor of conservative politics.

You can't ask for evidence that Moore is lying, then dismiss every single link that answers your question just because you see it as "biased."

I don't know what you are wanting here. You dismiss anything said by any sites showing even a remote hint of right-wing bias (yet you have no problem accepting as fact what Moore says, apparently if something has left-wing bias, that is okay). Are you basing right-wing bias solely on the fact that they point out falsehoods in Moore's work? If so, that is some circular reasoning. "I don't trust the sites that bash Moore's work because they are right-wing. Why are they right-wing? Because they bash Moore's work."

Also, I don't consider a site (fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com) that has 32 posts, with some directed at specific aspects of the movie, "vague."

Here, to save you the trouble, I will paste content from spinsanity.org and Newsweek myself. Check the next two posts.

Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, I have already read articles criticizing Moore’s film. Quite frankly, reading them is like watching someone split hairs with a paring knife. The links you provided (with the exception of the one done in spinsanity) were no different.

sad astronaut said:

I don't know what you are wanting here.

Click to expand...

Here, let me help you out. Can any of the following be denied:

1 There was a scandal surrounding the 2000 presidential election in Florida.

2 Several African-Americans representing disenfranchised voters in Florida, whose votes weren't counted in the 2000 election, tried to petition the Senate. Not one Senator would co-sign the petition, which was required for submission.

3 Prior to 911, the Bush administration was warned that Al-Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil, and ignored the warning.

4 The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaeda members to escape. You mean to tell me, that with our superior intelligence and military might, we can’t find Bin Laden?

5 Members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave the country. By the way, saying to me that “they were not allowed to leave before anyone else was allowed to leave” is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. Why were they not detained?

6 America attacked a sovereign country that did not provoke us in anyway. No proof was given that Iraq had anything to do with the 911 attacks. And please, don’t give the “weapons of mass destruction excuse”. North Korea told us that they have nuclear weapons of mass destruction and threatened us too. If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why didn’t they use them against us?

7 Military recruiters target poor areas and those with a lot of minorities for the majority of their recruiting. Unless I’m mistaken, not one of those articles addressed that point.

Diakonos said:

As I stated earlier, I have already read articles criticizing Moore’s film. Quite frankly, reading them is like watching someone split hairs with a paring knife. The links you provided (with the exception of the one done in spinsanity) were no different.



Here, let me help you out. Can any of the following be denied:

1 There was a scandal surrounding the 2000 presidential election in Florida.

2 Several African-Americans representing disenfranchised voters in Florida, whose votes weren't counted in the 2000 election, tried to petition the Senate. Not one Senator would co-sign the petition, which was required for submission.

3 Prior to 911, the Bush administration was warned that Al-Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil, and ignored the warning.

4 The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaeda members to escape. You mean to tell me, that with our superior intelligence and military might, we can’t find Bin Laden?

5 Members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave the country. By the way, saying to me that “they were not allowed to leave before anyone else was allowed to leave” is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. Why were they not detained?

6 America attacked a sovereign country that did not provoke us in anyway. No proof was given that Iraq had anything to do with the 911 attacks. And please, don’t give the “weapons of mass destruction excuse”. North Korea told us that they have nuclear weapons of mass destruction and threatened us too. If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why didn’t they use them against us?

7 Military recruiters target poor areas and those with a lot of minorities for the majority of their recruiting. Unless I’m mistaken, not one of those articles addressed that point.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that Fahrenheit 911 does not have its good and truthful points. Arguing no. 6 would be fruitless, as any argument over Iraq is. At the same time, I do not consider fact-checking "splitting hairs."
I see the falsehoods in the movie as important, but you don't, I guess. I'm curious what your definition of a "blatant lie" is, even if there is nothing in these articles that meet your definition, I would think there would be enough in these four articles and their sources to raise some red flags.

I don't think they are criticizing the entire movie, and they are not saying it is completely false, they are just saying "Look, the movie makes alot of good points, but here are some deceitful things going on..."

It's not that I just have an agenda against liberal political pundits. There was some deceit in Ann Coulter's book "Treason", (pointed out by spinsanity.org). It was nothing significant, I don't believe, but I figured if I would criticize Moore for doing the same thing, I better be consistent, so I don't listen seriously to what she has to say. It had something to do with her taking a quote from Newsweek out of context. I have no problem with political pundits adding fuel to the fire of anger between the two sides, but when it is based on something that isn't true, that's another thing. Ann Coulter had painted a picture of Newsweek, or a similar source, seeing Ronald Reagan as a renegade cowboy, but that wasn't the case. The point was, all these conservatives read her book, and grow enraged at the "liberal media" based on distortions of facts. Moore does the same thing, (Fahrenheit fact #24) in which he states that the Fox News channel was the first to predict Bush as the winner, influencing Florida being called for Gore, which in reality it was CBS. Again, all the liberals watch the movie and say "OOH, I'm so mad at that conservative news channel." Sure, conservatives may hate the "liberal media" and liberals "Fox News", but how much of this hatred is based on fact, rather than blatant lies or distortion of fact?


You asked for anyone to disprove anything Moore said in his movie. I would think out of those four articles, something would have been disproved. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

sad astronaut said:

I don't think they are criticizing the entire movie, and they are not saying it is completely false, they are just saying "Look, the movie makes alot of good points, but here are some deceitful things going on..."

Click to expand...

And there is where we disagree. Most of those articles appear to totally discredit Fahrenheit 911 IMO. I didn't see one article that even hinted around that Moore made any good points(not even the second link that you said had "Pros and Cons". Maybe I just didn't see them). What they are trying to make out as blatant lies are minor points in my opinion. Fox example. One of the articles made light of the fact that all international flights were allowed to leave after Sept 13, and Moore leaving that fact out somehow obscures his claim that the Bin Laden family shouldn’t been allowed to leave shortly after the attack. I fail to see how that has any bearing on his claim. The fact of the matter is, allowing the Bin Ladens to leave at all was poor judgment. One of those articles accuses Moore of exaggerating the wide spread knowledge of the Al-Qaeda plot within the FBI stating that report never made it to Ashcraft’s desk until after the attack (as if that was any better, or somehow excuses the incompetence of the FBI). Another article said that the classroom scene was unfair (where Bush walks in the classroom even after he received the report that the first trade center had been hit and continues to stay when received the news that the second building had been hit). Then they go on to say that someone on the 911investigation committee said that Bush did the right thing by not leaving the classroom. The whole time I am reading this, I’m thinking to myself, “this is the best they could come up with?”



JMO
I too will have to agree to disagree.

Regardless of what you think of Moore's political leanings, this movie is a must see. It is well done, well edited, and quite informative.

Although none of the facts Moore states are new, you would have had to read obscure articles on p.45 of the British news to be familiar with them. The facts he states are true, but one may question his usage of them (some argue, out of context).

This movie shows our president in his true light... and is a visual and auditory reminder that... MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

But regardless of the politics, this movie is smart and well done. .... and hilarious! Very entertaining and comes highly recommended.

I think a huge question we should be asking is.. Why do some tend to "want" to support MMoore and the MMoore philosophy of tearing down Christian and American values? Answer this question and I think we see into a person's life and moral/biblical worldview.

timusic76 said:

I think a huge question we should be asking is.. Why do some tend to "want" to support MMoore and the MMoore philosophy of tearing down Christian and American values? Answer this question and I think we see into a person's life and moral/biblical worldview.

Click to expand...

I don't WANT to support tearing down Christian and American values...

but when our president, who claims to be a Christian, is deceitful and makes decisions seemingly NOT in the best interest of America, but what is in the best interest of his own family's pocketbook, I question it. The fact that Bush is a Christian (or at least claims to be--I'm in no position to question his heart) does not EXCUSE our right and responsibility to ask the questions. I will not blindly and ignorantly support all his decisions.

I don't support Michael Moore as a whole, but I will support his right to question government. With careful research, I have concluded that the FACTS he states in his movie are correct. There may be a question in my mind on how he uses the facts and may take things out of context (i.e. making Iraq look happy pre-war is a bit questionable)... but the FACT that Bush has lead a secretive government and has questionable ties to the Saudi's and the bin Laden's is uncontroverted. The fact that he dumped near $850 mill in stock and got NOTHING while Martha Stewart awaits sentencing for $40,000 is VERY questionable. The fact that he ignored warnings about Al Queda is undeniable.

And respectfully, I am offended that your statement implies that those who support Moore's movie are probably not good Christians...

What about a president who LOVES money so much he will do anything to get it... how much of Christ's love is he showing by that? When he mocks a poor person (who claims to be a converted Christian) on death row "please help me, please don't let me die"... where is the compassion of Christ in that?

And I don't believe that by supporting this eye-opening movie is tearing down Christian values at all.

It is our responsibility NOT to blindly accept injustice and wrongdoing.