http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer
Here is a link to the trailer for a must see movie for all!
While your at it check this out.
Oh yeah? Well this article refutes YOUR article … 
[quote]Get Him!!
As Moore’s Critics Suit Up for “Fahrenheit 911,” Liberals Need to Figure Out the Game
by Andrew Christie
Few recent books and movies have been subjected to as high a degree of public scrutiny as the works of Michael Moore. As a fallible human being producing fact-dense works, often citing equally fallible reporters and researchers, his work has an error ratio that is probably comparable to that of everyone else’s in print or film media, but everyone else is not the world’s most visible and provocative critic of our government’s policies, hence their work does not receive a line-by-line, shot-by-shot analysis, animated by a feverishly determined purpose to discredit.
The forthcoming documentary “Fahrenheit 911” is likely to set records in that regard. The stakes could not be higher. Moore’s foes get it. Moore gets it, too, and he has retained the services of Bill Clinton’s rapid response team from the 1992 election to refute attacks.
The only ones who may not get it: Liberals. When the conservative right and its corporate media handmaidens have throw down dubious “factual challenges” to Moore’s high-profile works, many on the left have proven willing to go along.
The classic case in point: Seemingly within hours of the release of Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” in October 2002, the alleged deceptions of Michael Moore were circulating through the zeitgeist at a markedly stepped-up pitch. They coalesced into a hit list printed in Forbes’ December 9, 2002, issue, becoming a trumpet call for right-wing bloggers. Then Moore’s dour critics in the groves of liberal academe took up the cudgel, with Dissent publishing “The Perils of Michael Moore” in its Spring 2003 issue, solemnly including the litany of Moore’s alleged “Columbine” transgressions.
The classic life-cycle of a manufactured political smear is not difficult to detect as it travels across the public spectrum. The goal is to build up enough critical mass that ordinary folks on the street get wind of the target’s alleged mendacity and deceit and simply accept it. Many of those normally astute enough to consider the source when a campaign of vilification is based on obvious political disagreement do not make such allowances when presented with what looks like simple mendacity. Pointing out “errors” and acts of deceit seems value-free. Target isolated, credibility compromised, mission accomplished.
But manufactured charges tend to fall apart on examination. Chief among the “Columbine” charges was the “free gun” scene in the bank that gives away guns to new customers.
Here’s how it went in Forbes’ authoritative-looking bullet points:
“BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, ‘if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun.’ He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun. ACTUALLY: Moore didn’t just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check.”
Compare this to Moore’s account of what happened, as posted on the “Bowling for Columbine” website:
“North Country Bank (with branches throughout Northern Michigan) offers you a wide choice of guns when you open up a certificate of deposit account… The bank is also an authorized federal arms dealer so they can do the quick background check right there at the bank. I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, walked out with my new Weatherby-just as you see it in the film. (I did have a choice of getting a pair of golf clubs or a grandfather clock, but they didn’t have either of those hanging on the wall like they did those three rifles).”
Tellingly, the differences in these opposing accounts are not a matter of blunt contradiction but of details omitted and included, respectively. The omissions necessary to trump up the “Moore staged it” story become visible in the light cast by the details included in his personal account:
He would’ve had to open a long-term CD! (…and he did.)
You have to get a background check! (…which he did, on the spot.)
Even more tellingly, that Forbes piece claimed that “Bowling for Columbine” also perpetrated the following “falsehood:”
"WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare [sic] program that prevented the boy’s mother from spending time with him. ACTUALLY: Moore doesn’t mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns. "
Anyone who even casually followed Moore’s commentary during the 2000 presidential campaign, two years before “Columbine,” knows that among the top 5 charges he leveled against the career of Al Gore was Clinton-Gore’s championship of welfare “reform,” the draconian measures Moore held responsible for forcing that woman to get on a bus to make an 80-mile daily commute to two minimum-wage jobs, thereby also forcing her to leave the son she could no longer care for – day care or baby-sitters not an option – in the hands of her brother and in the vicinity of those drugs and guns, as Moore related in painful, vivid detail. Forbes made his point for him.
Last year, an enterprising Alternet freelancer interviewed North County Bank’s marketing director, who confessed that “she worked with Forbes magazine to put out an article discrediting the movie.”
“Dissent” fell for it – eagerly – and was not alone among liberal deep-thinkers who frown on Moore’s barnstorming tactics. Needless to say, those on the left who repeat the smears of ersatz “debunkers” and parrot their conclusions without running down the source or performing a reality check do the work of the opposition. The attack-&-discredit strategy of right-wing media organizations, think tanks and PR consultants is as old as the created image of the beastly, nun-roasting, baby-bayoneting Hun, concocted to draw the U.S. into the First World War.
It never gets old, because the credulity of the target audience stays forever young. [/quote]
Roy,
Michael Isikoff has an article in the current Newsweek that compares the facts to Michael Moore’s new film. It’s just journalism, not ideology.
But as for the article you post, I’m afraid its author is not being truthful with you. The full story of the woman who left her son with her brother, where he obtained a gun and then killed a fellow student is DRASTICALLY different from how Moore portrayed it in his movie. I don’t care whether a magazine was prompted to smear “Bowling for Columbine,” it doesn’t erase the facts which you, Roy, should look up if you actually care about whether Michael Moore can or cannot be trusted.
But even that discussion assumes that we put aside Michael Moore’s charge in the Nation magazine that General Wesley Clark was among the mass-murderers who should be tried for war crimes for launching the bombing campaign in Bosnia to protect the Muslims there, and subsequent support of Clark’s presidential run. And that we also put aside when Moore was briefly editor of Mother Jones and sunk important articles that were meant to expose the massive human rights violations and murders of the Sandinistas.
Be careful who you claim your spokesman, Roy.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
A liberal trashes Moore:
from Slate:
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
… [read the full article]
If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.
Additional quotes from the Hitchen’s review. Hitchen’s is actually a liberal columnist and author!
“To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery.”
I was going to post Hitchens as well, but you all beat me to the punch.
I would just love for some cerebrally challenged Moore true believer to question Hitchens’ liberal credentials and try to paint him as part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” or as a Bush sycophant, because it would illustrate precisely the general mindless, ad hominem nature of those attacks.
I think this particular passage of the Hitchens article should be highlighted:
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something?I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now?has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous “distraction” from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
-
The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
-
Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
-
The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
-
The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
-
The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
-
The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly “antiwar” film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore’s direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush’s removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn’t even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all?the latter was Moore’s view as late as 2002?or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is “in” the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don’t think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn’t do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar?an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building?is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left?like the parties of the Iraqi secular left?are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.