PDA

View Full Version : Farhenheit 9/11



erp7e
08-06-2004, 08:11 PM
Finally saw it. Makes some very interesting points.

If anyone is still considering voting for Bush this fall, you owe it to yourself, your country, and all our veterans who have been killed or maimed in Iraq, to see this film, regardless of your political persuasion. It's not about politics, it's about what's right...have an open mind.

Boxer
08-06-2004, 09:45 PM
Bush was on our news a lot here today becuase he made some goof in a speech about terrorism or something. Was funny.

What's that film about by the way? You guys in the US tend to get to see the films before we do in UK.

elissalowe
08-06-2004, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Boxer
Bush was on our news a lot here today becuase he made some goof in a speech about terrorism or something. Was funny.

What's that film about by the way? You guys in the US tend to get to see the films before we do in UK.

Actually, it was shown in Europe (Cannes) first.

I've seen it twice: once with Number-One-Son (who is very politically savvy for a 14 year old) and once with my husband. It's definitely a polemic - but I don't mean that in a negative way. Michael Moore presents his audience with information slanted towards his point of view - which is delivered with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. I don't agree 100% with his interpretation, but I respect and admire his willingness to take the gloves off and get in the faces of Bush and his enablers, who are far too comfortable with the power they have over others.

The film is a compilation of events, interviews, and images, strung out in a rough chronological order. It begins with the 2000 (s)election, and proceeds through the first months of Dubya's (mal)administration. The video segment of Bush in that classroom on 9/11 alone is worth the price of the theater tickets: he continued to sit there reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children with a completely vacant and clueless expression on his face with full knowledge that our nation was under attack...this scene completely refutes Karl Rove's carefully crafted image of our "Commander-In-Thief" as a decisive, resolute leader. The film explores the connections between the Bush family and the Saudi royals, presents an overview of the Iraq invasion, and explores the aftermath via interviews and video segments. There are also a couple of the stunts that are Michael Moore trademarks (such as renting an ice cream truck to drive around DC reading the text of the "Patriot Act" over the loudspeaker). There are two very affecting scenes in the latter half of the film: one is an interview with Lila Lipscomb, a mother who encouraged her children to join the military, and whose son is killed in a helicopter crash in Iraq. The other follows two Marine recruiters, as they venture into the economically devastated areas of Flint, Michigan (Moore's hometown) to "pitch" the military to young people with limited opportunities.

A definite must-see, both as a political statement and cultural phenomenon.

elissalowe
08-06-2004, 11:52 PM
Oh yeah - speaking of Dubya, check this out:

http://whitehousewest.com/

OK, this should be in the humor thread, but it's topical. And Will Ferrell's a scream!

erp7e
08-07-2004, 05:10 PM
I personally didn't care for the humor, self-promotion, and grandstanding (e.g., the PATRIOT Ice Cream truck deal, or standing across from the Saudi embassy and making a big deal out of being harrassed)...but I know that's part of the Michael Moore package.

A large proportion of the film was simple presentation of facts, with MM staying out of the way.

In addition to the scenes Elisa mentioned, I was particularly disturbed by:

1) Rumsfeld et al. lying to us about how only military targets were hit, and the "amazing precision" of our weapons, juxtaposed with *truckloads* of burned up Iraqi women and children in completely *residential* areas, and one Iraqi man holding up a charred and mutilated baby, saying "What, was this baby going to come out and fight the soldiers? What did this baby do to you?" or something to that effect.

2) Bush saying the war was "over," and if anyone wanted to try anything (Iraqi rebels), then, and I quote Bush, "Bring it on." Juxtapose that with scenes of American soldiers getting dismembered in ambush attacks.

3) The number of military service men and women who are maimed and permanently disabled are not shown in the casualty statistics...which by the way, are the highest in any conflict since Vietnam (and counting).

4) The enormous profits that Bush, Chenney, Saudis, and family and friends' corporations stand to make off the war continuing.

5) Americans are drilling for oil as we speak on Iraqi soil. Sure...it was about "liberating the Iraqi people"...sure.

6) We DO NOT have a free press. FOX, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, you name it, are NOT telling the full story of what is going on in Iraq.

7) 20+ members of the Bin Laden family allowed by the Bush administration to leave the country via private jets on 9/13/01. Documented. Unbelievable.

I could go on, but just see it. I agree, Moore is a sensationalist and I was not a huge fan of him before this movie. But I believe that in this film, he tried to stay out of the spotlight and let the facts speak for themselves. Everything from the fake (s)election, to ignorance of terrorist threats, to basically his whole presidency being a vehicle to make him, daddy Bush, Chenney, et al. richer...even if it means lots of innocent lives, particularly from the lower socioeconomic classes, are lost.

Ad
08-07-2004, 10:29 PM
1 year ago, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation made a documentary similar to Moore's. There are similiarilites between the two regarding the facts. If people are against Michael Moore then perhaps they should do a search for the Canadian version which is based on facts. I can't understand how anyone would vote for Bush again after watching the Canadian version.

erp7e
08-07-2004, 11:21 PM
Ad--

Good point, I hadn't heard of the Canadian version. I think I need to start looking to Canada or the UK for news, considering that obviously, something other than the First Amendment is controlling the news here.

My point was that I hope Americans can look past their preconceived notions about Moore and see what is really going on here. The film's about the Bush administration, after all, not about Moore and whether we like him (unfortunately, in the U.S., people tend to pay far more attention to the messanger than the message of late...).

I don't know how anyone with a conscience could vote for Bush again, period.

elissalowe
08-08-2004, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Ad
1 year ago, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation made a documentary similar to Moore's. There are similiarilites between the two regarding the facts. If people are against Michael Moore then perhaps they should do a search for the Canadian version which is based on facts. I can't understand how anyone would vote for Bush again after watching the Canadian version.

You're referring to "The Great Deception" by Barry Zwicker, correct?

Synopsis here:

http://www.visiontv.ca/Archive/Archive.html

elissalowe
08-08-2004, 01:51 AM
Oh - and VHS video available here:

h t t p://www.viewerplus.com/product.asp?Stat=Vision&ID=12043

Ad
08-08-2004, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by elissalowe
You're referring to "The Great Deception" by Barry Zwicker, correct?

Synopsis here:

http://www.visiontv.ca/Archive/Archive.html

Actually, I think it was called Conspiracy Theories by Bob McKeon. It runs every once in a while on the CBC.

erp7e
08-10-2004, 12:32 AM
It appears that many people have become so concerned about this administration to the point where they'd put together a documentary. Scary.

Simon
08-14-2004, 10:41 PM
Of course what is amazing Erp7e is that all the points you listed were pretty much common knowledge in the UK prior to the war hence all my US buddies simply not understanding or believeing when I told them this war was not about liberating poor iraqis or WMD's. I would watch Fox news and simply gawp in disbelief as to , well, no other word for it , lies they were telling the US public.

There is a very diffferent news in Europe compared to the US which which is also why issues like the Palesintian Israeli issue is so differently viewed by europeans to americans. A lot of US news is privately owned with friends in high places it pays to provide one view of current affairs...

alanjlamore
08-15-2004, 12:02 AM
What??? Are you trying to tell me that we didn't just go to war out of self defence and for the liberation of oppressed people in another country?? (sarcasm)

I have to admit though, I was buying into just about everything Bush and his administration were saying.

I remember thinking "Why can't people see all the good that we are trying to do over there?" and "There are lots of Iraqi people who want us there to help stop the torture and raping going on over there."

I guess I didn't put 2 and 2 together and realize that there are plenty of other places in the world were people are being oppressed by their government, and we're not stepping in cause we don't have anything to gain by doing so.

I wonder if we'd be there if they didn't have so much oil.

Well all I can say is that although I am a republican, I don't think I'll be voting for my party this coming election. I've actually been more motivated to actually get off my lazy but and go vote this time.

I still haven't seen Farhenheit 9/11 but plan to. We have a 10 month old now and it's hard to get to the theater ;).

Is it out for rent yet? If not does anyone know when it will be?
I'd assume they'd want to get it out before the election.

elissalowe
08-15-2004, 01:38 AM
Fahrenheit 9/11 is scheduled to be released on DVD on October 5. It can be pre-ordered on Amazon.com.

Simon
08-15-2004, 12:23 PM
Well in many ways, I think the coalition long term will bring benefit to iraq, however security, real democracy, etc are a looong way off now, what looms every more present which we are seeing is civil war, a decade of unrest, massive danger to Iraqis, and coalition members, relegious fervour, see christians now being attacked by othe faiths, SH was a grusesome dictator but one plus from that is order. There were no sucide bombers around then, no UK and US forces being murdered daily, no iraqi civilians being blown up in huge numbers. No breeding ground for terroist organisations.

You don't even want to hear the true number of dead Iraqi civiialns since the war 'ended' , we are way in excess of anything SH could muster , even when he had our help supplying him with chemicals etc...

I don't buy the 'war never solves anything' crap, it can and does, but it needs to be implemented in the correct way and be a last resort. There was no reason, aside from multi billion dollar Halliburton contracts , oil and regional power to go to war at that point, and as we now know, Bush had this war under way days after reaching office.....

They knew full well they could not let the UN inspectors carry on, because the longer they had the more the US public would know for sure that no WMD's existed, when the UN appointed guy failed to find anything, they knew they had to move in, or the US public would ask questions , that's why they let the US appointed guy go in AFTER they had attacked, when he found nothing and said nothing existed, it was to late.

Many UK and US servicemen have died for very little in return, personally I think in 10 yrs time, history will look more kindly on what happened, but I could be wrong, it could be a real election killer and when that happens people get twitchy forces move out, more iraqis die.

The more iraqis that die , the more family members of those Iraqis wish to kill more coalition forces.. Brute force is not the way forward or the solution at this point.

It's an unholy mess and your not seeing the real figures of US dead, because the US is now spending milliones on private secdurity firms to actually guard the US forces and these fgures are now being shown in the stats.

The average Iraqi has literally no trust in the US appointed Iraqi goverment, Chalabi,. washingtons former sweetheart whoi is meant to be setting up the trial of SH, is now basically under thread of death or imprisonement in Iraq, so how that trial will work, god knows.

If it could get worse , I would like to know how, the trial of SH will get very stick for the US when SH council start showing Donalds Rumsfeld with his arm around Saddam, when the US and UK knew ful well SH was killing anyone around him he hated and in big numbers.

It's a mess and would take a greater man than I to find a sensible exit plan at this point.

erp7e
08-15-2004, 05:01 PM
It's an interesting point about the U.S. media. I thought I was already fairly jaded but I don't think I realized until recently just how controlled our press is. I always figured that no matter what went on in our government, we had the "free press" to uncover it (or at least have the spirit to try).

I have recently been going to Canadian and British sources for much of my news and commentary, one of my favorites being The Economist because of the global perspective and nobody is in American pockets.

It makes me sick to hear people give the rationale of "Saddam was a terrible tyrant." Well...

A) We at one time supported Saddam...he was murdering people then, and we didn't seem to care.

B) As Simes pointed out, the current state of chaos and killing is much worse than Saddam's regime.

C) Most of Africa and their various dictators in some nations are a helluva lot worse off than Iraq/Saddam, yet we don't seem to care about the killing there. I guess Halliburton can't gain much from overthrowing those governments.

ray2nite
08-15-2004, 07:21 PM
Looks about right to me.

Simon
08-15-2004, 07:29 PM
clever

erp7e
08-16-2004, 09:37 PM
Imagine a place where...

Big Brother is always Watching You. (PATRIOT Act)

Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. News is fabricated to influence public perception; who is "enemy" or "ally" can change at any moment and the public doesn't notice. (FOX News, MSNBC, CNN)

The government controls the people by feeding them lies, narrowing their thought process through bewilderment (Dept. of Homeland Security, Terror Color Chart) and brutalization (police)that alienates everyone from his/her fellow man/woman, and deprives and condemns people of every pursuit from critical thinking to sex. ("People need to watch what they say;" John Ashcroft's various exploits; attempts at censorship of books and movies; destruction of the separation of church and state; etc.)

The novel, 1984, or present-day America?

Maybe Moore should have titled it, "2004," but no one would've gotten it.

halbarad
08-17-2004, 03:26 AM
Two words:


Christopher Hitchens. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/)

(Who is, incidentally, an impeccably credentialed man of the Left--just see what he wrote on the passing of Ronald Reagan (http://slate.com/id/2101842/).)

Simon
08-17-2004, 09:56 AM
Yes an interesting article, however IMO incredibly flawed in many areas , the flaws start almost immediately re his introduction on OBL and Afghanistan.

The authour plays the old trick of providing some data but not the data you need to determine if his statments are incorrect or not.

For instance, of course attacking Afghanistan was worthwhile as Osama lived there and the Taliban are evil. That's his surmisal.

Hmm, well the actual data you need to refute that is that almost all the indidivudals who fllew the planes on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, NOt afghanistan.That the vast majority of people displaced, killed , detained etc in Afghanistan had little to no connection to the Taliban, and indeed as is being found out now, almost all the guantanomo detainees are not 'bad men' - A Bushism) but were simply caught up in the swoops of arrests by rival gangs opposed to the Taliban (just as evil as the taliban) and handed to US forces for money. Hence the US rapidly releasing many prisoners recently before the shit hit the fan.

A similar situation as to in Iraq as the US has released over 400 prisoners on one day when people began to find out that the vast majority had commited no crime at all and were simply swept up in the mess, the only difference between the cuba prison and IRaq is that more eyes are on Iraq. Only now are many of the guantanomo guys being released or allowed to have a trial, because the US public, again has been conned with lies and half truths into believing the inmates there are all hell bent on commiting terroist attacks on US soil, in realty most are a bunch of half witted farmers, kids, relatives of rival taliban gangs etc, etc,

Also try to remember that the US killing of many taliban would have no effect on terrosim, (other than to incite more), as the taliban were not those responsible for attacks on the US, nor would they have the resources or inclination to do so, that was Al-Quaida operatives based in Saudi and Morocco. So many people would have to ask if there was much benefit to attacking Afghanistan other than to placate an angry US and world community , including myself, I must agree at the time, I felt it was right to some degree, but that's the danger of lack of information.

BTW, the evil Taliban just a year before the invasion of Afghanistan had members close to OBL, flown in private leer jet to Texas by US oil companies, linked to Bush's family , they were put up in 5 star hotels while the US tried to convinced them that they should allow the US a deal to build a great big oil pipe to the US the Taliban refused the deal however, a big mistake most likely.

Funnily enough guess what was the very first infrastructure change carried out by US companies in Afghanistan , ? A great big oil pipe - what a concedence.

The authour is right IMO that Moore does selectively choose his fights, and rarely bothers to pen the other side of a specific argument, he's a closet politician and that's what they do, however Moore makes some very salient points and indeed indivisduals in the film make it for him even better, check out the previously pro war mother.

The reality is you can twist data to support both sides, but this authour is worse than Moore in his representation of the data.

Another example statement taken out of context.

'Either Saudi is in control of US policy or it's not'. he makes this statement based on if Saudi coundn't get the USA to not attack Iraq, that somehow their are no connections between power in the US and in Saudi ??

That's a simplistic and pointless statement, that they could get OBL family shipped out of the US post haste does not mean they can control the US into not attacking IRaq, that's a pointless statement and in no way is Moores point contradictory.

To be honest, I could go through, many , many more picking apart the authours statements, some points he makes are great and I agree with them, but a lot of it, if you have a little knowledge are very easy to refute and contradict.

The truth is everyone has an angle and you can believe this guy has his reasons for writing such stuff as did Moore. Even supposedly clean authours with high credentials are swayed for some reason or other.

Look at the recent boat man story and how the independent commision found the statements to be highly suspect and indeed found a trail of payments back to a highly funded republican business man, and indeed one of the veterans who made the statmens complely retracted it saying it had been a mistake.

People with highly impecible credentials will often say things for a reason, his article is so anti Moore without taking on board anything the film says or indeed people in the film say (not Moore) and the way he twists data into pointless contradictions leasds me to believe he has less than the truth and impartiallity as his primary concern.

Any credible author worth his salt would at least pay some credence to the US Governement under Bush's personal orders allowing the entire Bin Laden family to leave the US without US forices being allowed to seriously question them and see what if anything could be learned to bring the man to justice who still evades capture in a country attacked for no gain at all, while the breeding ground for terroism is still the US' 'friend and partner' in the ME.

The guy is a great writer, but by not acknoledging any content withint the film and spending an overtly large amount of time, making up negative superlatives and pointless analagies he loses any credence he had to start with IMO

halbarad
08-17-2004, 03:28 PM
Simes,

I don't intend to get into a flame war on this (besides, I would like to keep friends around here!). But--just as a for instance--allow me to respond to one of your points.

You wrote:

Any credible author worth his salt would at least pay some credence to the US Governement under Bush's personal orders allowing the entire Bin Laden family to leave the US without US forices being allowed to seriously question them and see what if anything could be learned to bring the man to justice who still evades capture in a country attacked for no gain at all, while the breeding ground for terroism is still the US' 'friend and partner' in the ME.

I must ask: Did you actually read the whole of Hitchens' piece? He does address this very issue. It turns out that Richard Clarke--one of Moore's primary sources for the film--claims personal responsibility for allowing the bin Laden clan to leave following 9/11.

Indeed, Clarke said as much in the non-public part of his testimony before the 9/11 commission, which 30 seconds on google can verify. And if there was any way to pin that on the Bush administration, Clarke would have done so. But he can't, which is just one example of Moore's rather selective take on the facts.

Here's just one additonal link on that subject:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110004893

One thing I do not understand is how many (clearly) intelligent people walk away from F9/11 saying "yes, there were some cheap shots and serious unsupported allegations, but basically Moore is presenting the truth." But unless one is willing to do the rather hard work of sorting truth from propaganda, how is one to know where the first starts and the second begins?

Simon
08-17-2004, 04:09 PM
Didn't realise we were in a flame war, presumed it was just conversation??

As to what certain people admit to , it's unlikely we will ever know reasons for certain people admitting this that or the other, we have seen many people falling on their sword for many reasons and why he may have actually authourised the departures, who requested them ? The Bin Ladens?

No I did not read the entire article in depth, some I scanned, but my points re many of his points stands IMO.

As I said, I dont' think Moore is one sided , I know he is and he's blatantly an unapolgetically honest about that, he made the film to help get Bush out of power, there's nothing ocovert about that.

But much of what this authour is saying is no better than Moore and uses half truth or portrays one side of the argument.

The truth, as always , lies somewhere in the middle.

elissalowe
08-17-2004, 04:19 PM
Halbarad:

Have you actually seen the film? You seem all too ready to swallow Hitchens' opinion whole, without revealing any details about your personal response to what was on the screen.

For the record, many of the progressives I read refer to Hitchens as "Snitchens" - not a compliment - and this was long before F9/11 hit the screen. My assessment is that many on the "left" view Hitchens primarily as an egotist and opportunist (rather like Moore, from certain points of view). For a contrary view of Hitchens and his critique, check this out:

http://www.nypress.com/17/26/news&columns/MattTaibbi.cfm

halbarad
08-17-2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by SIMES
Didn't realise we were in a flame war, presumed it was just conversation??


Sorry, wasn't being accusatory: a conversation isn't a flame war. I just know how high emotions can run on this subject, so I'm treading carefully, is all.

I don't have time for a full response to your points. But consider: in October, the people of Afghanistan will be voting for a representative government. Early next year the people of Iraq will have the opportunity to do the same.

That's 50 million people who now have a greater say in their own futures.

Simon
08-17-2004, 04:25 PM
Hi, yes I agree with you in many ways, don't get me wrong. Also I appreciate what you mean about treading carefully.

Hopefully, long term, all this will be worth it, the cost of life will be long term seem as the reality of transition.

Possibly it may take a decade, but I hope history will look well on the situation in a global contect, but that does not stop me feeling that the reasons were wrong and politically and financially driven not for helping Iraqis etc.

And while elections are great, the reality is that say for example in Iraq, the oppressed now hold the majority and that , in a civil war situation does not bode well for true democracy or security and safety

Also even worse highly relegious fanatics are actually the most popular . What happens if Sadr is voted their leader? how the hell do we deal with that. The man they have been bombing for 3 weeks now primeminister? Don't laugh, guys like him are incredibly popular. The currennt interim governement is a puppet joke and looked on accordingly.

How will the the US and coalition deal with that???Democracy ain't so great when it don't suit you.

We could be out of the frying pan..

But yes as you say, and I also say, what's done is done, now we have to just hope for the best for the future.

WillBrink
08-17-2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by erp7e
Imagine a place where...

Big Brother is always Watching You. (PATRIOT Act)

Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. News is fabricated to influence public perception; who is "enemy" or "ally" can change at any moment and the public doesn't notice. (FOX News, MSNBC, CNN)

The government controls the people by feeding them lies, narrowing their thought process through bewilderment (Dept. of Homeland Security, Terror Color Chart) and brutalization (police)that alienates everyone from his/her fellow man/woman, and deprives and condemns people of every pursuit from critical thinking to sex. ("People need to watch what they say;" John Ashcroft's various exploits; attempts at censorship of books and movies; destruction of the separation of church and state; etc.)

The novel, 1984, or present-day America?

Maybe Moore should have titled it, "2004," but no one would've gotten it.

It's a ploy taken right out of the pages of a very old rule book:

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"Arguments must therefore be_ crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology." - Joseph Goebbels

halbarad
08-17-2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by elissalowe
Halbarad:

Have you actually seen the film? You seem all too ready to swallow Hitchens' opinion whole, without revealing any details about your personal response to what was on the screen.

Yes. And I found it both toxic and puerile.

Part of the reason why I'm not emphasizing my own reaction, however, is because I'm clearly in the minority here. I've had a conversation with a very good friend blow up over this (not F9/11, but the war), and with that fresh in my mind I'm treading carefully here (see my last response to Simes). I thought that by linking to an outside source I might inject a different point of view without raising the temperature here overmuch.

As for Hitchens: for someone of my ideological persuation he is an uncertain ally at best. (Progressives long since discovered the same thing, which makes his extended tenure at The Nation all that more surprising.) But when it comes to presenting a coherent argument he beats a showman like Moore, hands down.

Simon
08-17-2004, 04:49 PM
Yeah, I would have to agree I dont see the guy refuting what hitchens says, that would have been more interesting.

ps I don't think it's about being in a minority, I think you will find plenty of people think it was a good idea, my feelings lie in the middle of the argument , but what I don't believe for 1 iota is that WMD or the poor people of iraq where the real reason to go to war.

erp7e
08-18-2004, 05:22 PM
Most of the right's arguments against Moore's film (the intelligent ones, anyway) have been attacks on Moore himself. Nearly everything in Farhenheit was available elsewhere before the film came out. It was the way Moore was able to put them all together on screen that was particularly moving.

Is Moore biased? Hell yeah! I don't see anyone getting bent out of shape about the bias of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, et al. Our country needs people like Moore and Limbaugh. The problem is news is controlled by money, money is controlled by Republicans. So there are a hell of a lot more Limbaughs on the airwaves then there are Moores.

One of the best things to come out of this, no matter what your viewpoint, is that actual dialogue is going on at all. For most of the Bush administration we've been warned to "watch what we say," and "trust" the executive branch without even questioning or inquiring into what was going on.

With all the inquiry into Bill Clinton banging an intern (which had no consequence on my life or anyone else's), you would hope, even as a Republican, that there would at least be *inquiry* and *discussion* about Bush's actions, without us being told to blindly follow his lead with our mouths closed.

The first American flag read, "Don't Tread On Me." No matter your political persuasion, when you start saying things about essentially discouragement of any discussion or inquiry into what our government is doing, you are not an American.

So I will gladly listen to an intelligent opposing viewpoint. And I will more than gladly refute it. What I won't listen to is intimidation tactics by the government for people to not question what is going on, or people telling me to just be quiet and trust Dubya.