Just got back from Farenheit 9/11

[Chubby]

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Chubby

He hasn't lied. You disagree with what Moore wants the film to suggest to people.

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Chubby

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.

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?

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Try the Christopher Hitchens' piece - http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

And during the ask members of Congress stunt, he cut out at least one that said his son/nephew was going over there right now.

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.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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.

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by chinaski

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.

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.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

You want to discredit Hitchens because of old articles? Well then, let's discredit Moore because of his numerous lies in BfC.

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Chubby

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.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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.

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.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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.

My response was to this inaccurate quote ..

And during the ask members of Congress stunt, he cut out at least one that said his son/nephew was going over there right now

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?

[cheetum]

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by chinaski

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.

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

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by chinaski

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

[Buccaneer]

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?

[NoMyths]

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.

[Buccaneer]

Can't think of any?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

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.

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?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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.

[Buccaneer]

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.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Can't think of any?

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Chubby

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.

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

[Jesse_Ewiak]

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.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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

Which would be?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

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.

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

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Which would be?

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

[stevew]

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

[NoMyths]

He didn't appear to be praying.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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

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?

[Buccaneer]

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.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.

[timmynausea]

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.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.

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.

[Maple Leafs]

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.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

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.

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

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by clintl

Don't be dissing satire. It is one of the great art forms. Quite a few of the greatest writers who ever lived were satirists - Swift, Voltaire, Dickens, Twain, Vonnegut. It has a honored tradition, and has made enormous contributions to literary and political discourse.

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

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

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.

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

[Buccaneer]

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.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

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

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.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.

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

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Chubby

It goes to how in bed all politicians are with the Saudi's which IS important.

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?

[Archer219]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

He also questions the war, but then says we're not sending enough troops.

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!!!!! 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."

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

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.

No we wouldn't, nice try tho.

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

[Buccaneer]

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

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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?

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

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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

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

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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

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/

[clintl]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

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

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