Before I go to the store...

Here is the main hangup I think the people who think Moore is "lying" have.

Moore shows Bush talking about terrorism then says "Now watch this drive". Moore wants you think take out of that "Bush is an ass". People who like Bush disagree that Bush is an ass. So they think Moore lied however all he did was present something that happened and presented it. Just because you disagree with the message you took from the scene, doesn't mean the scene never occured.

LOL. Being purposely deceitful = lie.

Not to mention all of the untruths (=lies!) in Bowling for Columbine.

To deny that Moore is an outright liar is sad.

Here's a novel concept:

People can dislike Bush AND Moore. I also am not a Republican, and I didn't vote for GW in the last election. Don't think this is some kind of Republicans and Neo-cons ganging up on poor Mikey Moore.

How's that?

This is completely inaccurate. During the 'enlist your family members' bit Moore explicitly states there is one son of a senator currently enlisted and deployed in the Middle East. He is 100% correct. Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, has a son Brooks, 31, and he is a sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division. He is the only relative of any senator or congressman serving our country.

What are the lies?
Don't give me a ridiculous Hitchens article. That guy is completely insane. I saw him on tv a couple months ago literally raving about how "Mel Gibson is an ignorant peasant." He wrote an anti-Mother Theresa article, for God's sake.
I just want to know where these lies are.

As far as what...Bowling for Columbine? I don't really think I need to spell those out.

As far as F 9/11, he insinuates the Saudi's were let go by Bush w/o being questioned. Not only were they questioned, but it was Richard Clarke's move. He also questions the war, but then says we're not sending enough troops.

He can't have it both ways...again, no one should trust someone who can't even control themselves. You want to discredit Hitchens because of old articles? Well then, let's discredit Moore because of his numerous lies in BfC.

And? Should people FORCE their children to go into the military? Are those in the military FORCED to enter? I'm not quite sure what his point is.

Go nuts. Doesn't bother me.

Again, and I'll quote you "As far as F 9/11, he insinuates the Saudi's were let go by Bush w/o being questioned. Not only were they questioned, but it was Richard Clarke's move."

That's YOUR interpretation, not something he stated I presume. Point out something where he lies and it's different not something where it's "I don't agree with what I think his message was".

"LOL. Being purposely deceitful = lie." Where is he decieving anyone? Everything in the movie happened, no? Again, you interpretated his message and disagree, big difference.

This is really pathetic. My interpretation? It's pretty obvious what he's insinuating. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, like Moore whines for the sake of whining.

Don't respond.

:rolleyes:

kettle, pot, black.


Just so I'm sure, you think Moore is a crackpot and back that up with an article of "lies by Moore" written by a crackpot? Good show lol.

My response was to this inaccurate quote ..

From what i gathered from the piece Moore was after the 'shocked' response from Senators/Congressman from a question. The question, if this war is so necessary for the well being of America - would you be cool with your loved ones fighting in Iraq?

the movie is very well made, and worth seeing. However, its important to take it for what it is: an editorial. an opinion. a "point" without a "counter-point". Moore is expressing to the audience his opinion, very elequently, and the way he can do it best, through film.

The finished product becomes something more powerful and convincing (to those who might buy into what Moore is trying to sell) then any newspaper editorial, liberal rantings and petitions, etc... It also does something successfully else which i think was also Moore's intention, an that is to piss off conservatives and create controversy.

Moore does make some good points in the film. Its too bad however, that he has used a few propoganda/media type tactics to distort his truth. I think I would have respected it more if he had left some of that out. Some examples were already mentioned above, like when he posed a question to a US (republican) congressman about how he would feel if he had family involved in the war, but left out. The answer would not have supported the viewpoint he's trying to convey, but rather then just leave the scene out altogether, he decides to use it to imply to his audience something different then the full truth. (After the movie was released the congressman explains to reporters he DOES have family in the war, and told this to moore, but this was left out of the film).

all in all its worth the price of a ticket. (although i would wait till the theaters are less crowded to see it). Moore is a talented filmmaker, no argument from me there. :)

Have you actually done the math on this? There are, what, 100,000 troops in Iraq? There are about 280,000,000 people in the U.S., I think.

Are you sure that one Congressman having one kid in Iraq isn't about right, percentage-wise? Are you saying that Congressmen should offer up even more than the average American?

CR

Im not saying anything. I was just dispelling the myth that Moore was cutting out senators responses who actually had relatives in iraq. Moore never did that.

So he showed the entire scene with that one senator, not changing a thing, in the movie? What about other senators? Did he show any clips of them?

Or did he pick what he thought would back his agenda up and let everything else go byt the way sie (especialyl anything that works against his beliefs)?

CR

One thing that is bothering me. In the reviews (like Ebert), they point out the "7 minutes" pause after the WTC hit as being "most damning". Wasn't he (Bush) waiting for transportation and security to be arranged? So what was he supposed to do, panic and act all crazy in front of the school kids?

It's interesting to me that people would suggest that the only two options concerning the seven minute delay are to either: a) sit there, or b) panic and act all crazy. I'm sure that other options were available.

Can't think of any?

Many things could've been said:

"Mr. President, we're getting more info..."

"Mr. President, we're formulating a travel route right now. We'll let you know when we're ready."

At those really that implausible?

One would think that the President of the United States would have a plan for everything. I'd be surprised to hear they didn't have a plan. I don't think the 7 minutes is that big of a deal. They at least have to get air force one ready which isn't instantaneous.

Tho the "we didn't want to scare the children" excuse is a little weak. What did they think was going to happen when they heard about the planes? The President leaving "because something came up" wouldn't have been a big deal IMO.

He did leave because something came up. If the 7 minutes is not a big deal (which probably was how long it took to warm up the plane), then why act like it was in the movie? As far as having a plan for everything, they did. It was called "get the President to a secure area". They did that despite miscommunications and conflicting govt agencies acting like this was not one of those prepared events.

Because maybe Moore thinks it is a big deal while I don't?

Sure: tell the teacher that something has come up, and then vamoose. As was pointed out, the photo op wasn't secret--if we were being attacked (as the President was told while he sat there), there existed the possibility that the President's location was a target. I'll just say this: I remember what my reaction was while 9/11 was unfolding. Watching the President's reaction for the first seven minutes was unsettling. And being as how he was informed of the first plane hitting before he even entered the classroom...it is sobering video.

Don't want to scare the children is a weak excuse, I agree. It's also probably really, really far from the truth.

I just thought of something in about five seconds...

"I'm sorry kids, but important President business came up. But tell you what, in a few weeks, you can all visit the White House." Boom, he shakes the teacher's hands and then asks whoever, 'What's going on?" It's sad I could figure that out in about five seconds, and Bush sat there for seven minutes.

Which would be?

What if they wanted to secure the surrounding area from potential snipers, etc?

Honestly, I have no idea. Maybe secure the area from potential snipers

Is it possible that Bush was praying during this "7 minute interlude?" I havent had time to see the movie yet.

He didn't appear to be praying.

So you're saying it's common practice for a president to walk into unsecured areas?

Somehow this and the "he was praying" don't exactly seem plausible to me. Being the religous person he is, why wouldn't Bush have wanted to pray with everyone in the school?

I call BS, NoMyths. In the first 7 minutes, you were trying to determine what had happened and waiting to get more information because you had no fucking idea as what the hell was going on.

It's really pathetic all of these hindsighters (esp. Moore) are using this as a political haymaker. Except for Chubby, he doesn't think this is a big deal as I agree as well.

If I'm in that situation, there's no way in hell I'm sitting in a classroom listening to kids read at me. I'm on the phone with folks in the know figuring out if we're at war or not. That said, I don't think it's being treated as a political haymaker--I know I don't treat it as one. But it is troubling to watch.

To me the image of Bush sitting and looking terribly vulnerable and unsure for 7 minutes is only relevant when juxtaposed with the way he is usually marketed to us. This isn't W in the flight suit. This isn't the guy who says "bring 'em on" and "with us or against us." This isn't the "decisive" "leader" we always hear about. This is just a guy that doesn't know what to do. He just looks bewildered. It really does not fit with the way his image has always been presented to us.
It was one of a few different moments in the movie where I actually felt sorry for George Bush.

The 7 minutes is just the icing on the cake. before he even entered that school, the 1st plane had already hit and he was fully informed of this.

He is informed during the classroom reading that "The United States is under attack" and continues to sit there. Then once the reading is over, he stayed at the school for another 30 minutes.

i dont think its that big of deal, there are plenty of other more important things GW has mishandled.

I think the "seven minutes in the classroom" scene is one of two non-issue issues that are getting far too much attention (along with the "Bin Laden's relative flight"). If people wind up focusing on them instead of on the much more serious charges, I'd bet that Moore will end up regretting the focus he put on them.

Yup, it showed he was human. What a terrible thing for a President to be.

Dear god, Did you just put Moore in with that group? Yellow Journalism at best IMO

I disagree on the Bin Laden family thing. It goes to how in bed Bush is with the Saudi's which IS important.

I am recalling Pearl Harbor, the immediate reaction to that 9/11-like event and the hindsight blame on FDR for having the fleet bunched together.

Agreed that Bush/Saudi connection is an important issue. I just don't see a serious connection here.

Both the classroom and the flight controversies seem to be example of easy hindsight. If Bush had sprung up from the classroom and dashed out the door, his opponents would now be criticizing him for panicking, for being unable to remain calm and composed when the situation required it.

By the same token, what if the administration had refused to let Bin Laden's relatives out of the country? We'd be hearing how Bush and his friends think all Arabs are the same, how they assumed these innocent people were terrorists, etc.

The rest of us on the board would respond but since you are the only one who was alive then... :p

We have chosen our poison in relying so much on OPEC oil (as oppose to domestic sources). They will be our enemy but right now, they can't be. Israel has been and always will be our friend for political and social reasons, that can't change. But with so much attention by politicians being said about "The Economy", we have no short-term choice but to be in bed with the Saudis and OPEC producers. But covertly, how do you know we are not making a difference there?

He says we didn't and have not sent enough troops to Afghanistan. Remember that whole country with all the terrorists? We have more troops protecting the oil wells in Iraq than in Afghanistan. Mean while Afghanistan is falling under the same warlords that made Afghanistan a terrorist state in the first place.

If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about Bush and his "War on Terror", I don't know what will. Bush only cares about oil.

As to the whole Bush - Saudi royal family connection, there have been articles written on the subject in the Economist and the Atlantic Monthly. There is a connection, and the Saudi royals may be some of the most crooked people in the world.

On a side note, did anyone catch the Bush interview with Irish television? Brilliant stuff. I swear to God at one point the interview went something like this:

Reporter: A lot of the Irish people are angry over the attack on Iraq because they had no WMDs, which was your reason for attacking in the first place.

Bush: Look, the Iraqi government was given a time frame to disarm, and they didn't disarm, so we took action.

THEY DIDN'T DISARM THE WEAPONS THEY DIDN'T HAVE!!!!! :rolleyes: I'd rather not have a president who can't come up with a logical arguement to back up his actions. Hell, say you were going in for Iraqi freedom (which is bullshit as well), or just come out and say you wanted control of one of the world's top producers of oil.


"Bush said, 'There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again.'

For once, we agree."

No we wouldn't, nice try tho.

It furthers the fact that Bush sleeping with the Saudis drives decisions in this country.

It's funny, Chubby because the whole world would substitute Israel instead of Saudis in your statement.

As others have said, it has been documented that the Bush dfanily is heavily connected to the Saudi royal family.

That would be the USA, not just the Bush family.

Since you have posted this in every Moore thread and every time I have posted links showing that the lies alleged are almost entirely wrong, I think maybe you should document the "alleged" lies of Moore. TroyF has posted links for lies with a Fred Barnes article (which is unimpressive because it is really just he said/he said), but there seem to be some damning things in Moore's book (although I haven't researched those). The lies in BfC, however, are really not lies at all (with the now corrected error in the Horton TV ad). To see Moore's documentation for the alleged lies, go to:

hxxp://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Of course I don't think he's as good as they were. But I think satire is what he is doing.

That's what I said, maybe they were securing the area.

So again, is it common practice for a president to walk into unsecured areas? The area should have been secured before he got there, try again.

Sorry, I choose to believe those that have a shred of credibility, not someone who can't even control himself.

Like Hitchens right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. wait.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just saw it. Watching it here in SF i now know what watching "the passion" in colorado springs must have been like....

I think the that-dumb-bush stuff was cute, but not really telling, good music though.

I also did not like his making the Iraq war personal and unique. All war is always ugly, sad, devastating. I just finished an ernie pyle book on his time in italy and france in ww2 and the soldiers were making the same complaints and telling of the same senseless loss of life.

The best thing, I think, about the movie was the poor fighting the billionaire's war. it's a dirty little secret that the US gives citizenship to those that join, and depends on poor communities.

Finally, I think he was a bit washy on the notion of using fear. He is very right about this threat level and patriot act stuff. But on one hand he shows how the US missed important chatter and memos pre-9/11, and on another he claims that after 9/11 chatter and warnings have been made up (exaggerated) and should be dismissed as propaganda.

This is beyond stupid. When you`re the President of the most powerful country in the history of the world and you`ve just been attacked by suicidal zealots, I hope the first 7 minutes go exactly as you`ve imagined. And God forbid your face show a little of the shock I`m sure you`d be feeling...

Back to topic, I haven`t seen the movie yet but I plan on entering the movie with an open mind. Although I personally believe Bush and his religious zealots are destroying the country while stealing the bread from my family`s table, I`m going to open my heart for 2 hours and allow myself to be open to a new perspective. I`m personally excited to have my belief system challenged!

Religious Zealots. LOL!

Stephen was called a Zealot for dying. Something tells me none of Bush's "religious zealot's" have any plans on dying anytime soon.

If you're going to attack my statement as completely inaccurate, you might want to choose your words better. Son/Daughter and relative are two different issues. It also appears that Moore is referring only to Senators, not Reps (but don't expect him to make that clear.) And knowing this and Moore's past work, it is quite possible that there are others who are serving but not deployed in the ME. He isn't lying, he is just choosing his words very carefully and then trying to give a different impression.

JG - What about the get a gun at the bank stunt? It was arranged weeks in advance to allow for the necessary backround checks and all to be completed, but in the film he either explicitly states or strongly implies that anyone can just walk in off the street and get a gun.

I love how some of the Moore supporters in this thread attack Hitchens as unhinged, not worthy of reading and mock him while simultaneously attacking those who would do so to Moore. Since y'all don't want to address him, I'll sum up some of the criticism from him and others.

When it comes to the Saudi part of the film, apart from never really getting into why the Saudis are so bad (and I've been saying they are for years, but there are probably a lot of people going to this film who don't know why) he also attacks Bush for allowing members of the bin Laden family to leave the US (singling them out because of the name even if they've never done anything seriously wrong) when it was actually Richard Clarke, held up later as someone who opposes Bush's actions, who has said he was the one who authorized the flights. Then he seems to imply that, because of the close personal relationship, the Saudis have too much control over our actions, (a charge that doesn't really seem to hold up. Witness our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, over Saudi objections, that we've now moved our troops out of the country and have started putting more pressure on them to crack down) without ever presenting situations where they this control manifests itself. In the end, if as Moore claims it really was all about oil, then no one would oppose it more than the Saudis who would be most threatened and lose the most from the #2 nation getting its full capabilities back online. This is just one of the many contradictions Moore has.

Then the 7 minutes part. Other than authorizing a jet to shoot down an aircraft there isn't anything that the President does in that situation, the system in place and qualified professionals and specialists are in charge of the response, so I'm not sure what people wanted him to do. Meanwhile, I'm also certain that if he had been seen getting angry and/or saying something along the lines of "Let's find out who did this and kill them." that would also be used to support the assertion that he's just an irresponsible cowboy with bloodlust.

Then we get to the Iraq war. His footage of Saddam-era Iraq is a joke. Everyone was happy and smiling until we came and overthrew Saddam (ignore every poll taken which show that overwhelming majorities support our removal of said tyrant.) He even goes so far as to say that Iraq under Saddam had never killed or even threatened an American. Um, Gulf War I, the assassination attempt on Bush I, giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?

Another part of the film that Moore spends time on is Homeland Security. He attacks the Administration for not doing enough pre-9/11, then for issuing too many threats after 9/11. He makes fun of the often ridiculous airport searches, then claims they should do more.

One claim repeated over and over is that we didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. While he also complains about the soldiers there dying needlessly. And he never mentions his opposition to the Afghanistan conflict.

These multiple contradictions just show that, even when Moore makes no attempt to show the other side of the story, he still can't present something that actually makes a coherent, well-thought out point. He consistently makes fun of what is being done, often from both sides, but never presents an alternative plan of action. Someone who I was talking to today about the film said she was glad that someone had the "courage to make the film." I nearly threw up in my mouth. Then I see that it has also been said in this thread. Give me a break, the guy is making millions of dollars and there is no threat of being imprisoned or injured because of what he is doing. If that's courage I guess we should be applauding the executives at GM who made the decision to lay off the workers in Roger & Me.

As far as the gun in the bank thing: it doesn't discredit any of the major points made in the film. So maybe they had contacted the bank ahead of time. It is basically a minor moment, just irony. I guess that makes it fair for Bill O'Reilly to compare Michael Moore to nazi propagandaists? (Which he has done repeatedly over the past couple weeks.) I don't think this discredits his work (and particularly facts presented about Bush) much or really at all.

If you'd seen the film you'd know that the pre-war Iraq footage you're speaking of was about 30 seconds long. Certainly no more than 45. I actually thought it was interesting as I'd only heard about rape rooms and torture chambers over there. Seeing Iraqis going through every day things made them more real to me as people basically just like me. (I guess it's one of those things you know, but seeing it on film makes you really realize.) So in no way was he trying to sum up the history of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. He was just showing a little footage from March 2003, the time immediately before the bombs started going off.

As the article that tears the Hitchens article to shreds says, Mike worded things terribly when he suggested no Iraqi had harmed/threatened us. I noticed that at the theatre. I assume, like the forementioned article, that he meant since 9/11. Even then, it's an iffy statement at best. Perhaps he meant the people of Iraq as opposed to Saddam? In any case, this is certainly a valid criticism.

As far as not sending enough troops... This was meant strictly in terms of Afghanistan. It is absolutely clear, if you watch the film, that he thinks no troops should've been sent to Iraq, and that he agrees with Richard Clarke that more troops should've been sent to Afghanistan.

A lot of people have likewise suggested that Richard Clarke is a "saint" in the film which is ironic with the fact that Clarke has taken responsibility for authorizing the Saudi flights. I didn't get the impression that Clarke was considered a saint. He was in the movie for about 30 seconds as I recall, and aside from the more troops in Afghanistan part he is basically not a factor.

I took all the Homeland Security footage to mean that we are not safer at all and that Homeland Security is being mishandled. We are giving up rights (patriot act and flight searches) and yet we are surely not safer. (One officer is in charge of guarding the entire Oregon coast, and it's a part time shift.)

I don't really get the "other side of the story" stuff. Nobody would suggest that Bush should take some time to clearly explain Kerry's view point. I don't see why it's any different in this case. The movie at times does contradict itself, as did Bowling for Columbine. A lot of people praised Bowling for Columbine for asking more questions than it answered, and I think Fahrneheit 9/11 is about the same. It stimulates the viewer. How can it be propaganda if it doesn't tell you exactly what to think?

I finally saw this film today. Let me first say that I think anyone who has an IQ that is better than a chimps can understand this is a propaganda film. Moore is a liberal film maker who makes propaganda films, and no one can really dispute that. You can attack Moore all you want and say that he leaves out things etc etc. And you will be correct, it is a biased film, very biased.

I knew that a lot of the facts were slanted in his favor to make a better film. However, two facts jumped out at me which are true until someone harks in and says otherwise. First, the US sent 11,000 troops into Afganistan, more police are in New York than that. How many troops have we sent to Iraq? This is something that pisses me off a lot. How the fuck can you send only 11,000 troops to a place that is harboring the man behind the 9/11 attacks? This is the enemy and everyone knows it and everyone knows that he was a bigger threat than Saddam. Absolute bullshit.

Second, as I stated this is a propaganda film. But wait, it can't be any worse than the bullshit the Bush admin shits out. Everyone attacks Moore for his inaccuracy. What about the Bush admin inaccuracy? The only difference between the inaccuracy and propaganda between the Bush admin and the Moore films is the fact that the Bush admin's accuracy has cost civilian and military lifes.

My opinion of the Bush admin hasn't changed since seeing this film. I already knew how the Bush admin has botched the war on terror and how they started a war that really no reasons except for the fact that Saddam was a tyrant and killed his own people. Can you really name any Middle East country that doesn't kill its own people?

Those who agree this war feel that Saddam had WMD, he was allies with Al-Qaeda and that he was a humans right violator. WMD: Iran has 'em. Big deal. Allies with Al-Qaeda: Not true whatsoever, although there may have been talks with Al-Qaeda by senior Iraqi officals there is no evidence that they collaborated on attacks. Did Saddam "harbor" Al-Qaeda? Maybe, but I can name a couple other Middle East countries that we havent attacked that still "harbor" Al-Qaeda. Humans right violator: Please, show me a country in the Middle East that ISNT a significant humans right violator.

My rant is over...OK now those who disagree or got mad reading what I wrote can attack me.

He asked for a part of BfC that was fabricated, I provided one. Using this to imply that I agree with calling Moore a Nazi propagandist or that everything in the film was wrong is quite a leap of logic.Unless he has changed his mind, he disagreed with sending any troops to Afghanistan.So then what the hell are his alternate plans? Giving the cops more power and money seems to be the closest he gets to an answer.In the 80's, when the Soviets rolled in with tens of thousands of men, we funded basically every Afghan of any significance. That isn't a place you can go in with a lot of people and overpower the Afghanis, so we allied with a large number of them instead. Maybe it was a mistake, but considering that is a small enough number as to be easily doubled or tripled, I'm guessing the Pentagon had some very good reasons not to send in more. Whether we then pulled out many of the elite troops and special forces to use in Iraq is a different issue.I'm kind of shocked that Moore didn't spend more time on this. I figured holes in the administration's rationale for the war would make up the majority of the film. I also love the defense of "The other side does it too, how dare they point it out."Israel, Turkey, Iraq come the closest.So we should a)not attack a country because there are others doing equally bad or worse things b)attack Iran or c)bitch about whatever choice Bush ends up making? (I hope we find out soon on whether b or c works for you) And I find your flippant attitude about one of the, if not the foremost state sponsor of terrorism acquiring WMD disturbing.This is such a weak defense I can't believe people consistently trot it out. The, yes Saddam was bad, but so is _____, so we shouldn't have done anything about Saddam. To use an analogy, if 10 people commit murders and the authorities only lock up 1, you would complain about not getting the other 9, not that they chose the wrong one. Either Saddam was a problem and we would have had to deal with him at some point or he wasn't. If he was why does it matter if he came before the others (even ignoring that there was no better option on the table, other than possibly Iran, due to NK getting nukes and the fact that invading SA would turn into a true jihad.)

Iran and Syria are bigger state sponsors of terrorism than Iraq. Iran has WMD, we know they do, they, like Iraq, have used them (Gulf War). And even if Iraq had WMD, it doesnt mean that they were planning to attack the US, there is no credible evidence stating that Iraq or Saddam planned to attack the US. I understand that Saddam had to be taken out of power at some point. But Why do it now, when we were already waging war in Afganistan? It probably would have been a better plan to send more troops into Afganistan, try to capture or kill that bastard Bin Laden and not spread our military thin. Smells like opportunism to me.

And get off of my damned YIM!

This is Moore's explanation from the link I posted earlier (you'll have to go to the website to use the hyperlinks that provide documentation for what he is saying):

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country – "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).

But the thing is, when this happened nobody (at least not in the media, certainly) immediately knew this was an attack. Sure, it's easy to recognize that in hindsight. But it was completely unexpected, and I remember watching NBC news soon after the first plane hit - they didn't know what was going on. The plane could have been just an amateur pilot who strayed off course and happened to run into a building. They didn't know. Not until the second plane hit.

You know what is interesting is Moore left out footage he has of abuse of Iraqi prisoners he received from an independent reporter in October of last year. I wonder why.

dola it's Fahrenheit!

In a situation where you may have to make a decision to shoot down a civilian aircraft, 7 minutes seems like a long time to me... if it was me I'd want to spend as many of them as possible talking to the appropriate advisors trying to figure out at least what was going on.

You're right. If it's secure at one time, it's always secure. Nothing changes. Ever.

So you admit Moore is just as crazy? Cool.

I think you guys misinterpret Hitchens' criticism. The major force behind it is not that Moore is necessarily wrong but that his arguments are sloppy and lack intellectual integrity.

Hitchens is not a nouveau Republican as the so called refutation says. His left-wing credentials are impeccable. But he is an intellectual, a purist, a perfectionist. He believes that if you distort the facts, omit relevant information, make cheap shots then you're unsure of your argument and you lose credibility. When he likens F9/11 to works by Riefenstahl etc he's not saying that Moore's views are fascist but that he's using the techniques used by Nazi propagandists - ie simplistic, populist, biased arguments that feed the prejudices of the intended audience.

I also think there's a great deal of professional envy in his position. Hitchens has made a number of documentaries which have never been popular or widely distributed. They're intelligent films with complex arguments, demand a lot from the audience and do not dodge the difficult issues (in his documentary of Mother Teresa he didn't so much criticise her but didn't shy away from saying that she was one of the last vestiges of imperial condescension).

In his mind, Moore has made a sloppy film and received great acclaim/notoriety for it when Hitchens' more sophisticated efforts have gone unnoticed. I think that's a major cause of his criticism. But that doesn't take anything from its relevance or accuracy. The motives may be impure but that doesn't mean the argument is invalid.

Hitchens is a snobby, humorless, self-professed drunk who get offs on his own sense of being 'contrarian.' Moore's movie is not the masterpiece that some are calling it, but like usual Hitchens is way off the mark. He's one of those guys who walks around all day(drinking--his admission, not my allegation, see Vanity Fair) whispering "I am an intellectual" to himself.

I never really cared for Michael Moore--but it seems to me the most damaging moments in F911 came right out of Bush and Rumsfeld's mouths, right? Like those alleged satellite pictures of WMDs that with the chemical depots circled in yellow? So what did they turn out to be? Wood sheds? Moore's not spinning that, he's just presenting it for what it is--a bald lie by the President of The United States right to the faces of all us Americans(note: and yes, Clinton was a lying rapist, too, who deserved to be impeached, but a lot more people are dying for this particular lie.)

As recently as two or three months, we issued the same sanctions against Syria we initially issued against Iraq. So I guess if history follows, Syria is next.

As far as I remember, no one accused the Iranians of using WMD in the Iraq-Iran war, and only Saddam has used the agents in his own country (to put down Kurd uprisings -- one of the reasons the no-fly zones were established). Gee, you sound so certain that Iran has WMD...almost as sure as people who are "in-the-know" thought (including every nation on the U.N. security council) Iraq possessed them. Maybe you should share your sources with U.S. intelligence.

Probably the same reason General George Patton wanted the U.S. to go ahead and roll into Russia after defeating Germany -- he knew we'd be fighting our good "allies" the Commies some day and he figured 'why wait', especially when we had the manpower and equipment in place to do the job then and there. You can criticize Bush's timing all you want. Personally, I would have preferred to finish business in Afghanistan too before pushing into Iraq. Hell, I wish Bush's daddy had done the job right in Gulf War I. But (gasp) EVEN YOU admit Saddam had to go, and it is painfully obvious that with most of our NATO allies getting nice little bribes and kickbacks thanks to oil-for-food, we were the ones who would be doing it...either now or sometime in the future.

Yes, Mr. Monday morning QB. I'm sure every lib on the board could have done a much better job planning our military operations. Oh wait, if it had been up to the libs, we'd still be negotiating with the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden to us. In fairness, I'm sure, even the libs would have taken a tough stance by now, ...economic sanctions against Afganistan would definitely be in place by this point if they ran the show.

If you parse that statement (and as a lawyer you should be good at it) you'll see he chooses his words carefully and doesn't ever actually deny that it was set up in advance by members of his staff. A second, perhaps clearer outright lie is that we gave money to the Taliban. Moore himself has admitted it was for humanitarian aid, but neglects to mention it went through the UN and international NGO's, not the Taliban itself.You seem awfully sure of that. While I certainly think they do too, there is nowhere near as much evidence in Iran's case as there was for Iraq before we invaded, so how can you be so certain? And for one reason we invaded Iraq before Iran, in addition to already have multiple UN Sanctions being continually violated, was that most of the Iranian people are very pro-American, and hopefully given a prospering somewhat Democratic country next door they would finally have the impetus to overthrow the Ayatollahs. Of course, the way Iran has been acting lately (moving divisions near the border, multiple Iranian army members being killed/captured in Iraq, taking Brits hostage) we may have enough for a casus belli fairly soon.

>Hitchens is a snobby, humorless, self-professed drunk who get offs on his own sense of being 'contrarian.'

As an answer to the accusation that the debate lacks intellectual integrity, that is not impressive.

>I never really cared for Michael Moore.................................

Then you and Hitchens would seem to be like-minded. You both have some sympathy with what Moore says but are not too keen on the way he sets about communicating his message.

Talk about seeing only what you want to see. This is from the above quote that I posted:

"When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account."

That says NOTHING was done other than phoning to make sure that filming was okay (something any filmmaker would do to avoid wasting time and money).

As for the Taliban aid, you can call it whatever you want, but the US government aided the Taliban government. NGO's were ultimately responsible for distributing the aid, but it went to the government first. And Moore didn't have to "admit" it was humanitarian aid, because that is what it clearly was under the budget. That is still aid to the government (and there is a wealth of literature about how humanitarian aid is used by oppressive governments for legitimacy and to hide the lack of social services provided by the government).

>And Moore didn't have to "admit" it was humanitarian aid, because that is what it clearly was under the budget.

You're not that naive, John.

FWIW, Iran has democratic institutions that, if freed from the grip of the Ayatollahs, could serve as a model for the region. Yes, they have been a sponsor of terrorism. Yes, there is concern that they might have a WMD program. But they also have some things going on internally that are worth nurturing where we have the opportunity to do so, and we have mostly been blowing that opportunity.

How does the term 'intellectual integrity' apply to footage of satellite photos shown to the UN and the American public? How does it apply to Bush and Rumsfeld's own words? Are you saying that only 'intellectuals' such as yourself should be allowed to discuss the war? Or have an opinion?


Nope, Hitchens is a war apololgist--an uppity, cranky bombastic war apologist--and I have been opposed the invasion since day one(not that my opinion matters for anything).

>Nope, Hitchens is a war apololgist--an uppity, cranky bombastic war apologist

Not a lot of improvement there :D

I don't know about Franken, but Limbaugh has never claimed to be "fair and balanced." He simply claims to be "balance" vs. the main stream liberal press.

It says nothing was done out of the ordinary. Phoning ahead and beginning the process of opening the CD/requesting the bank have the gun on the premises (the bank stored them at a warehouse miles away) both could easily fall under that definition.No, it didn't. It went directly to wheat, food commodities and food security programs distributed through UN agencies, bypassing the Taliban.