Just Saw Fahrenheit 9/11

I would not feel safe if I thought he was that. But he’s not. And he took decisive action to eliminate the threat after the attack. Do you think Gore would have done as much? And there has been no attack in our country for almost three years. This is amazing given the difficulty of spotting people who hide among civilians and who come here disguised as students and tourists. Given that, I certainly do feel safe with W in the Oval Office.

The proof is in the pudding. He promised security, and he delivered. If I were his boss and giving him his yearly appraisal, he’d get a raise.

Lumpy,

“Imminent threat”: it’s been dealt with and debunked. Read up.

“Putting the movie online for download may hit Moore in the pocketbook… I doubt he cares…”

He cares. Never forget that Moore is an ambitious capitalist as much as the CEOs he likes to skewer. Perhaps Moore will offer his movie up on download - but after he gets paid several times over. Moore is a monyemaker - don’t fall for his populist ruse.

“Do you feel safe knowing that the President of the United States is a lazy underachiever?”

Wait a minute. I thought Bush was restlessly planning a multitude of future wars with imperialistic zeal? Hard to be the second coming of Napoleon and be lazy, aye?

Enough with the vacation. Being away from the White House is not a pina-colada-sipping, crossword-puzzle-doing day at camp. He’s used his vacations to meet with various heads of state and dignitaries.

And here’s the best part: everyone knows this about presidential vacations, but it’s more fun to assume Bush is playing pinball and watching DVDs. It’s nonsense as usual, but why stick to historical experience when I can just make up some hogwash and fill in the blanks in my mind?

Bush isn’t lazy - and his critics can’t seem to make up their mind. Is he lazy and underachieving? Or is he staying up late at night trying to shred our civil liberties and plan new ways for Halliburton to make money overseas, which calls for a lot of overtime?

Or do you change your mind depending on what the Kucinich Mothership downloads to you?

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I think moore is very biased and out to villify Bush.
Yes, Moore admits this openly.

I have seen interviews with Moore however where he makes ridiculous points. For example Bush took a long vacaction the month before 9-11, which begs the question how was Bush to know what was going to happen a month later?

I think a better question is “Why is the President taking a month-long vacation, with less than 9 months in office?”

Do you the think the President of the United States should be a lazy sack who spends long weeks at a time on vacation?

When Bush was shown the brief “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within United States” on August 6th, did he get on an airplane and rush back to Washington DC? Did he get on the phone for a conference call with the heads of the FBI and CIA? Did he order a full scale review of suspected Al Qaeda operatives already in the USA?

No, Dubya poured himself another tall glass of lemonade and went back to playing videogames in the rec room.

Do you feel safe knowing that the President of the United States is a lazy underachiever?[/quote]

Another Moore “cheap shot” was his personal attack on Bush for spending 42 percent of his time “on vacation” prior to 9/11 – 96 of 226 days because he was at his ranch in Texas, or Camp David, or his father’s place in Kennebunkport. His purpose was to make it look as though Bush was not doing his job prior to 9/11. It amounts to an attack about anyone who does any work from their home. The “fact” was based on a Mike Allen story of Aug. 11, 2001. But even Mike Allen pointed out that Bush had a lot of official activities in his “vacation” time and much of it – 66 days – was on weekends, during which Bush also worked. Indeed, just a quick review of the White House press briefings (Briefing Room | The White House) indicates how hard a president works, even on vacation. Allen also noted the many days spent “on vacation” at their favorite places by Reagan, Bush the elder, Nixon, Eisenhower and, even, Truman.

And finally, just do this calculation of your own “vacation” time if you take the weekend off, have 10 days of vacation and take off the 10 federal holidays and you are “on vacation” 34 percent of the time. Work from home a day a week and that jumps to 48 percent. Members of Congress, since they have numerous district work periods and travel home most weekends to mix with district residents are on vacation 60 percent of the time.

Cheap shot? Distorting reality is distorting reality. It can encourage things like former President Jimmy Carter’s foolish Rose Garden strategy in 1980 where he wouldn’t leave the White House to even campaign after hostages were taken in Iran.

America better WAKE UP!!! First off I am going to post a speech Sentor Joe Lieberman made back on June 22, 2004.
Then in another posting will make some other comments…

"…Today I want to discuss the war we are waging against Islamic terrorists in Iraq and around the world, and to argue that it is fundamentally a war of ideas and a war of values, a war of conflicting visions of humans and history, of faith and country. The war on terrorism we are fighting goes to the very heart of America?s national purpose and national security. Our core principles of freedom and opportunity are at stake.

In the flurry of news bombarding us each day of the ups and downs from all fronts in the war on terrorism, it is easy to forget the larger ideals that it is all about. Car bombings in Baghdad? pipeline attacks in Riyadh? assassination attempts in Islamabad? foiled terrorist plots in Thailand? victories in Afghanistan? arrests in Columbus, Ohio? may cause people to lose sight of the values we are fighting for in this war ? and the values we are fighting against.

We cannot let that happen. A democracy such as ours can only go to war and win with the informed support of the people.

The terrorists can never defeat us militarily. But they can divide us and defeat us politically if the American people become disappointed and disengaged, because they don?t appreciate and support the overriding principles that require us to take military action. The same, of course, is true for our allies in Europe, Asia and throughout the Muslim world. They need to better understand and embrace our purpose and what it means for them.

What we are fighting for in Iraq and around the world is freedom. What we are fighting against is an Islamic terrorist totalitarian movement which is as dire a threat to individual liberty as the fascist and communist totalitarian threats we faced and defeated were in the last century.

What we are fighting for is an expanding worldwide community of democracies. What we are fighting against is the prospect of a new evil empire, a radical Islamic caliphate which would suppress the freedom of its people and threaten the security of every other nation?s citizens.

The Chinese strategist Sun Tzu said that the keys to victory in any armed struggle are to ?know thyself? and to ?know thy enemy.? His ancient wisdom should guide our modern conflict.

To win the war on terrorism, we must better understand ourselves and our enemies.

First, ?know thyself.? From the beginning, we Americans defined our nation not by its borders, but by its ideals. They are spelled out in our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence says, ?All men are created equal? and ?are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.? The Declaration also makes clear that governments derive ?their just powers from the consent of the governed,? not from the power of those who govern.

The Constitution explains that ?we the people? sought to form ?a more perfect union? to secure ?the blessings of liberty.?

Equality. Opportunity. Democracy. Unity. Liberty. Those are the values America stands for, the ideals we are fighting for in Iraq and around the world. Those are the bright stars we must always chart our national course by.

As President Reagan once said: ?What kind of people do we think we are? Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well.?

In our time, that particularly means the hundreds and millions of men and women who live in Arab and Islamic countries, largely outside the realm of freedom which has otherwise expanded so magnificently during the decade and a half since the Berlin Wall was torn down.

American foreign policy has changed repeatedly over our 228 years of history to reflect changing realities. But remaining constant throughout has been our belief that we must protect and promote America?s unique ideals throughout the world. And more often than not, we have succeeded. Presidents of both political parties have upheld this principled core of American foreign policy.

So too in Iraq today. In Iraq, we are not fighting for territorial conquest or economic plunder. We are fighting for freedom and security.

Next, we must know our enemy. The Islamist jihadist terrorists who wage holy war against us in Iraq and elsewhere represent a system of values exactly the opposite of America?s.

There is no better way to know this enemy than to read their words. The father of the jihadist movement, Sayyed Qutb of Egypt, wrote in 1952, ?The death of those who are killed for the cause of God gives more impetus to the cause, which continues to thrive on their blood.? The cause of which he speaks is to ?establish a [Muslim] state? that ?sets moral values,? ?abolish[es] man-made laws? and that would impose, by force if necessary, the Islamic system on ?all human beings, whether they be rulers or ruled, black or white, poor or rich, ignorant or learned.?

This is a radicalized, violent vision of Islam, as yet embraced by only a minority of Muslims. Pluralism of any kind ? a diversity of views or faiths ? affronts this radical minority?s absolutist vision. Their theological totalitarianism leaves no room for individual freedom.

Restoring the caliphate ? the seat of secular and ecclesiastical power that existed for centuries across a wide territory ? is their goal. You can read it in their writings: They would create a new evil empire, stretching from Istanbul to Islamabad, from Khartoum to Kabul, from Kuala Lampur to Bangkok, and beyond.

Osama Bin Laden is the leading advocate of this jihadist view in the world today, the current mastermind of this malevolent movement. Every American should carefully read his clearly stated words of intention to know why we must defeat him.

In his ?Declaration of the World Islamic Front for Jihad,? issued in February 1998, Bin Laden says that ?to kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim? every Muslim who believes in God and hopes for reward [must] obey God?s command to kill the Americans and plunder their possessions wherever he finds them and whenever he can.?

In his November 1998 ?Letter to America,? Bin Laden condemned the United States because, he said, like all democracies, it is a ?nation who, rather than ruling by the Sharia of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, chooses to invent your own laws as you will and desire.? After September 11th attacks, he gloated triumphantly that ?the values of Western civilization? of liberty, human rights, and humanity, have been destroyed.?

In this war of ideas and values, Bin Laden is the quintessential anti-American.
The values and ideas which we cherish and which Osama Bin Laden denounces are on the line in the Iraq war. To call the war in Iraq separate and distinct from the larger war on terrorism is inaccurate. Iraq today is a battle ? a crucial battle ? in the global war on terrorism…"

…"The connection between the Iraqi insurgency we are fighting today and Al Qaeda?s worldwide campaign of anti-democratic terror is now clear. Bin Laden?s henchmen are fighting side-by-side with Saddam loyalists on the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, Najaf and across Iraq ? killing Americans and killing Iraqis, striving to stop the onward march of Iraqi self-government, of democracy.

This should come as no surprise. Six years ago, in his 1998 Declaration, bin Laden made common cause with Iraq against the United States. Decrying the ?American aggression against the Iraqi people,? bin Laden said that ?in spite of the appalling number of dead, exceeding a million, the Americans nevertheless? are trying once more to repeat this dreadful slaughter?So they come again to destroy what remains of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.?

…"But nonetheless, today in America support for the war is in jeopardy. The continuing anti-American violence has turned off many who forget all that is on the line for us and the world in Iraq today.

The prison abuse scandal has caused many to question our moral standing in Iraq and to use it as an excuse to pull our troops out. That is thoroughly unjustified and profoundly dangerous. As I said earlier, the terrorists will never defeat us militarily. We cannot let them defeat us politically.

That is where you in the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and all who share your values have a critical role to play in the days ahead.

At the outset of the Cold War, President Truman made clear that might of arms alone would not be enough to win that war. He stressed the need to bolster the world?s economy so prosperity would replace despair, and to share America?s industrial and technical knowledge with the world?s people so they could lift themselves out of poverty, and into freedom.

We must do the same. We must show the Iraqi people, and people throughout the Islamic world, that democracy can deliver, that opportunity can replace despair, that hope can conquer hatred. We must accelerate the distribution of U.S. reconstruction assistance to Iraq, and we must widen our focus to include not only infrastructure repair, but jobs. Unemployment in Iraq is sky high ? and every pair of idle hands there is the terrorists? workshop. To win the war for democracy in Iraq, we must put Iraq back to work.

We must also persistently pursue our allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia to invest generously in Iraq and thereby enhance their own future security and freedom. They deceive themselves if they believe they can remain non-combatants in the global war against jihadism and for freedom.

A generous Marshall Plan to vitalize and democratize the Middle East and Central Asia, like the one called for in legislation I recently cosponsored with Senator Chuck Hagel is urgently needed. In the end, the war on terrorism will be won not just with swords, but with ploughshares as well, in the form of economic opportunity and political freedom.

The outcome of the battle in Iraq will have ramifications that extend far beyond that country?s borders. If democracy does not prevail in Iraq, it would embolden the terrorists and vindicate Osama bin Laden?s offensive allegation that ?we have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier??

Instability would spread throughout the Middle East. Iraq would become a new base of operations for Al Qaeda and new impetus for Osama bin Laden?s drive to replace the Saudi royal family and build a larger Islamic empire around it.

In his message to Congress in 1917 asking for a declaration of war against imperial Germany, President Woodrow Wilson said: ?The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.?

We are fighting today in Iraq alongside Iraqis and throughout the world alongside freedom-loving Muslims against the jihadists for the same values President Wilson articulated nearly one hundred years ago. If we can hold the American people together again around our noble cause, we are destined to prevail and secure our liberties, and the people of Iraq and the Muslim world are destined to prosper in freedom and opportunity. …"

(To be continued…)

Nikita Kruschev, who was a Communist Leader back in the 1950’s-1960’s, of the USSR. Said at the height of the Cold War, in a specch to the UN. The following…(Actually he took his shoe off, and banged the podium when he said this), “We will bury you. YOur children will live under Communism!”

Now before you shake your head, you stop and look at this country today. Because America is moving to the far left. Towards socialism. And we have been ever since the 1930’s. When we did so very slowly, and under CLinton, we moved even far left, than we ever had before.

For you see, what Kruschev said, was this, you will become socialistic, from the inside out. YOu will do it to yourselves. By spreading the idelaogy, the theories, socialistic thoughts, and ideals, into Americas, schools, colleges Univ, courts, governemnt, local state, and federal, anything we read, see in the movies, on TV. Even in our own military.

I had the golden opportuinty this past wekeeknd to talk with someone who was over in Afghanistan, and works with the press and media, and the press pool. ANd he told me several times, he went and took the journalistss, reporters, to differnet parts of Afghanistan. And showe dthem what was going on. And then he would find out it was the exact oppositie, or the truth was totally misrepresnted or distorted. And he went back to the reporters jorunalists and said why did tyou report it this way? I told you, I showed you what was going on. And you reported something different. And he said all woudl say the same thing. WHen it got to my Supervisors, it was all changed and distorted. Or he told me about a 60 minutes piece done in Afghanistan, where the reporter, told the exact opposite, and showed footage, which was
not even explained correctly. Giving Americans the wrong impression…ANd as we see it this is what is shown night after night, or is reported on. Not the true facts, but what “they” feel we should be reading, or listening to. SO this message of socialism can be brought out even more.

For this is exactly what the terrorists want. TO divide this country even more.
To rip to shreds this President and make it spread. So that the left can come into power. And if he does God help this country. Because this socilsiam message is not being brought out enough…I am sure the members of the group, from other countries that have socialism, can explain about the high taxes, they have. To pay for these programs. ANd how the governemnt contorols the main aspects of industry, health care, all aspects of ones life.

Is this what we want for America? TO become a socialistic democracy? If America does not wake up, and smell the coffee, we will be. Then it will be too late…To say how did this happen???

As for this film we are discussing, it is pure propaganda! Just read what Senator Liberman said. We must unite.
As one country again. SHow these terrorists we will not be defeated.
And we win. For what is happening now in this country is we are becoming divided more and more. And this film makes the division grow even more. Just what the terrorists want.

Too many Americans have forgotten what happened on 9/11/2001. ANd we are palcing the blame on everyone. We need to turn that finger inwards, and say once and for all. OK we are all to blame for it. But we need to now see the enemy, esp here in America, know who this enemy is, and needs to be brought out more and more. then work in unionsim to defeat this enemy…

And all this propaganda is doing is spreading more fuel on the fire, dividing this country even more, and
bringing this country closer to be far left… for that is the underlying message of this movie…

Stay Laced and True!!

CHUCKSmanjoe

Can’t let this thread die without posting this rip on Moore and his movie by a self-proclaimed Bush hater. Even this guy can see through Moore:

[Note: If you follow the link, you may have to go to the site archives if he has a more recent post, as I couldn’t figure out how to get a permalink to the post]

http://www.bigempire.com
/filthy/

When reviewing a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11, that is so highly political, it’s almost impossible not to let some of your own affiliations and opinions seep into your comments like so much blood into the urine. Really, it’s pretty fucking hard to write about a movie like this without saying “Right on!” or “Now, wait a minute…” I mean, maybe some really good writer could do it, but that ain’t me. I can barely write out a shopping list without revealing my deepest intentions, weaknesses, likes and fears. For example, from yesterday’s trip to Target: “Lube, rope, mosquito repellent, more nightlights NOW!!!, Swiss Cake Rolls (8 boxes? 10?), bicycle pump, flammable hair spray, still more nightlights!, that tangy cat food.” I’m just not the guy to look at a political movie without some prejudice.

So here it is: I think George Bush is a fucking asshole. I also think Michael Moore is a fucking asshole. Bush is the probably the bigger one, but he didn’t make a movie. He just screwed the country. Moore is a lousy researcher, but a loud one.

Fahrenheit 9/11 attempts to paint Bush as a criminal whose every move in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were prompted by greed and insidious business ties with Saudis, specifically the bin Laden family. In its first half, Moore shows that Bushes has worked with the bin Ladens for many years, and that they have invested over a billion dollars in Bush businesses. His argument is that this has not only blurred Bush’s judgment but is actually the driving force behind all the Bush decisions. It’s the sort of blanket, unfocused attack that Moore makes, and which he relies on his audience to not further investigate because they want to believe the worst about their enemies.

The movie begins with a review of the 2000 Florida election recall. After Moore feels he’s made his point (and he makes a great one about how cowardly our racist senators are) that Bush’s presidency is illegitimate, he moves on to illustrate all the ways the Bushes are deeply connected to the bin Laden family. What he never proves is how the bin Laden family is in cahoots with black sheep Osama. His only shred of evidence is that bin Laden went to one wedding where other family members were, but Moore plays this like it’s all the evidence anyone ever needs. To me, this ain’t much. I go to weddings with relatives I can’t stand, too. We ain’t in cahoots about nothing. Hell, we can’t even agree on who gets to stuff the leftover shrimp down his pants. The only truly damning evidence here is in Bush’s decision to let the bin Laden’s fly out of the US right after 9/11. But this isn’t news; it’s a repeat of dozens of newspaper articles. What Moore fails to point out in all of this is that we’ve had a dirty relationship with the Saudis for a hell of a lot longer than the Bushes have been in politics. We’ve turned a blind eye to the evil of the Saudis since before Nixon.

In its second half, Fahrenheit 9/11 contains almost purely anecdotal information about the war in Iraq. Mothers, soldiers and regular citizens recount what they’ve seen and experienced. The point is that war is hell; and that’s a pretty fucking cheap maneuver by Moore. I think all of us who’ve blown the heads off their GI Joe dolls with M-80s know it. Anecdotal information plays on emotion and isn’t the basis of a sound argument about a battle that’s a shitload bigger than a few stories. I mean, you could have found grieving mothers who would have said they opposed WWI, WWII and probably even the Revolution. Grief in itself doesn’t make a war wrong. Showing dead bodies doesn’t get to the root of why this war is even more hell than any other. This is a fucked up war we shouldn’t be in, I agree, but regurgitating graphic footage of injured soldiers and children doesn’t prove that. Moore preys on our squeamishness.

Moore tries to blame the creepiness of Army recruiters and lousy housing in Flint, MI, on Bush. He lost me. As far as I know, Army recruiters have been creepy at least since I was in high school. Lousy housing existed in Flint in Roger and Me and Bush wasn’t president then.

The problem with Moore’s approach isn’t what he presents, or even what he believes. Although, I think his approach of just piling on whatever he thinks smokes like a gun is lazy and disservices any focused attack. My real problem with the approach is what he leaves out. It’s obvious even to me–a guy who gets his political news from “Peanuts” reprints (and only the color ones on Sunday)–that he ignores all facts and evidence that might counter the argument he’s determined to make. The result is propaganda for people who already agree with him, but won’t change the minds of anyone whose mind you’d want to change. The people who disagree will continue to disagree, because Moore does nothing to counter their arguments. The movie would be a shitload more effective if it were focused on disproving conservative myths instead of creating a whole slew of liberal ones via implication.

That’s what I’d like to see. A movie that doesn’t pander to the NPR totebag crowds shuttling edamame home to their mud-compact homes in V-4 Saabs. One that has an answer every time the SUV-driving, fried-children-eating, baby-seal-beating Republicans say “But what about…” In stead we get a movie meant to make liberals feel good about themselves.

Now if I hear one more jackass say “Everyone should see this movie,” I’m gonna kick him (or her) in the nuts. What they mean is, “Everyone should see this because I’m right and you should be forced to agree with me. Oh yeah, and I’m an asshole.” Sure, everyone should see this, and everyone should read Bill O’Reilly’s books too. You’re a pompous ass if you think everyone should see it just because its what you believe. Only people who want to should see it. And they should see it as part of a much larger curriculum. You should know enough to make up your own mind, not let Michael Moore do it for you.

Two Fingers for Fahrenheit 9/11. I hate Bush, but I have better reasons than this.

Mago,

Who has the kind of democracy we should try? Give me an example

Well, the men (they were all men!) who created the American Constitution had a very precise idea of what a healthy democracy was, and in fact the whole constitution seems to have been written with the idea that people in powere can NEVER be trusted, and that all reasonable safeguards had to be put in place to avoid inevitable attempts at abusing power. If the constitutional safeguards were still rigorously in place then the constitution might still function healthily. The greatest safeguard of a good democracy I feel is a diverse and free press.

The reason I say that America is closer to a plutocracy (although I absolutely agree that on paper it is a constitutional republic) is that it requires an enormous amount of wealth and (increasingly) corporate backing for a person to achieve political office.
Do remember that Rome went from a Republic to an Empire in a very short space of time, and by a seemingly (to the populace) reasonable route. There were a few ‘liberals’ who spotted the danger but they were shouted down in one way or another. One of the earliest signs of corruption in Rome was the repeated attempts at power holding through the same families, does that sound familiar? Flavius Kennedy, Gregorius Bush, Magnus Clinton? It seems to me a very clear sign that the political PROCESS has become corrupted, not just the individuals within it. These are not new ideas, Chomsky, Stephens and Vidal etc have been saying this for a long time.

Hello friends!!!

I have not seen the movie. I fully support the filmaker’s right to spew propaganda. However, I was pleased that Disney refused to market this.

I wanted to post a comment by elkhntr1. This sums up the rank and file in the Democratic party in 2004 quite nicely. He wrote: “I’m against people who have never been to war who are so quick to bang the war drum as loud as they can!”

Yet he voted for Clinton. Twice. He is not alone. I find his hypocrisy insulting and a little sad.

I have a feeling he wasn’t protesting against our involvement in Bosnia. Was he out in force against attacking the aspirin factory in Sudan? How about launching the cruise missles against Iraq?

Clinton didn’t fly fighter jets in the Guard. What did Clinton do? He refused a direct order to report for service.

It’s hard to take the high ground when you were such vehement supporters of Bill Clinton.

Thanks Elk, vroom, danh, you guys make me look wonderful in comparison.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Clinton didn’t fly fighter jets in the Guard.[/quote]
Neither did georgieboy, apparently.

Which he freely admitted. Not like going AWOL from the guard, then getting the records “accidently destroyed” when they might come back to bite you later.

[quote]
It’s hard to take the high ground when you were such vehement supporters of Bill Clinton.[/quote]
Where you here on this board from 1992-2000? Can you swear that Elk, vroom, danh, etc. were “vehement supporters of Bill Clinton” during that time?

JeffR you are truly hilarious…truly!
Consequently and I am sorry I don’t have the link, but maybe anyone who is interested can google it there is very good article written by Bruce Bartlett of the New York Times who I believe is a conservative. The article is entitled ‘Politics in a Rearview Mirror’ It gives a very good perspective on the economic policys of Clinton vs Bush. You should read it JeffR that is if you haven’t already!

tme- Always good to read your posts… living up north in Wyoming you do any hunting? If you are an outdoorsmen we should get together for some hunting or fishing!

I would place moores film in with the slanderous documentary made about President Clinton when he was still in office. Remember the group of people that alluded to him having involvement with drug running in Arkansas? They tied him to various murders. It would actually be funny if it was not so nasty. Naturally many conservatives ate it up.

Many liberals are overjoyed with the Moore film. People inherently want to believe the worst about those they do not like or agree with. Sad…

“Fahrenheit 9/11” is our generation’s “Reefer Madness”.

I by no means think Fahrenheit 9/11 is the gospel! I do think it brings up some very valid points. Do I think Dubya was in cahoots with Osama? Hello no, I don’t! Do I think because the Bush’s have close ties with many Saudi’s they were and are given some friendly treatment? Yes, I do! Like I said it brings up some undeniable points. To completely write the whole movie off is to be in denial or blindly holding allegiance to your ideology!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I would place moores film in with the slanderous documentary made about President Clinton when he was still in office. Remember the group of people that alluded to him having involvement with drug running in Arkansas? They tied him to various murders. It would actually be funny if it was not so nasty. Naturally many conservatives ate it up.

Many liberals are overjoyed with the Moore film. People inherently want to believe the worst about those they do not like or agree with. Sad…[/quote]

There used to be some great “documentaries” that ran on the public access station in San Antonio during the mid to late 1990s. Things included:

–Clinton flying cocaine into Mena, Arkansas for the CIA during the 80s. In return he was paid in cocaine.
–Eventually, Clinton had to burn the Branch Davidian compound to the ground (children and all) to make sure that a CIA informant (who had knowledge of the Mena operation)died in the fire.
–Vince Foster was killed partly because he could no longer stomach the lies and ongoing murder of Arkansas state troopers on Clinton’s orders, but also because he had a longtime affair with Hilary.

I was no Clinton fan (surprise), but we used to sit and laugh our asses off watching such silliness. I guess we should have applied the Left’s “where there is smoke, there is fire” approach to viewing crap.

The Nine Lies of Fahrenheit 9/11

Michael Moore?s new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is a nice fictional stroll down Conspiracy Theory Lane that takes audience members to an abrupt dead-end at Slick Lies Street. With speculation presented as fact, specious and spurious connections depicted as reality, and outlandish and outrageous claims offered without proof, Moore?s movie is a shameless sham. The following is a brief description of only a few of the many lies that this film presents as truth.

Fahrenheit 9/11, Brought to You by Your Friendly Middle Eastern Terrorists
 There is no better way for Middle Eastern terrorist organizations to spread their anti-America, anti-West and anti-freedom message than through a film made by an American. The Iranian- and Syrian-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah knows this, and has thrown its full support behind the film.
 ?In terms of marketing the film, Front Row [a United Arab Emirates-based film distributor] is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah [who have called] from Lebanon to ask if there is anything they can do to support the film. And although [Front Row?s Managing Director Giancarlo] Chacra says he and his company feel strongly that Fahrenheit is not anti-American, but anti-Bush, ?we can?t go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria,? (Source: Screen Daily, 6/9/04).

-Page 1 of 5-
Fahrenheit Lie #1
 National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, ?Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.?
o The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of context. Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:
 ?Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It?s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.?

Fahrenheit Lie #2
 In the film, Moore leads viewers to believe that members of bin Laden?s family were allowed to exit the country after the attacks without questioning by authorities.
o The September 11th commission, on the other hand, reported that 22 of the 26 people on the flight that took most of the bin Laden family out of the country were interviewed and found to be innocent of suspicion.
o The commission reported that ?each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.?

Fahrenheit Lie #3
 Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.
o Bill Allison, managing editor for the Center for Public Integrity (an independent watchdog group in Washington, D.C.), on the other hand, said, ?We looked into bin Laden money going to Arbusto, and we never found anything to back that up,? (Source: Seattle Times, 7/5/04).

Fahrenheit Lie #4
 The movie claims that the Bush administration ?supported closing veterans hospitals.?
o ?The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals? (Source: Kopel, Independence Institute).
o But Moore?s film fails to mention that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers (Source: Department of Veterans Affairs).
-Page 2 of 5-

Fahrenheit Lie #5
 Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore?s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).
 Moore ?suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai ? was to help seal a deal for ? Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant,? (emphasis added), (Source: Seattle Times, 7/5/04).
o Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, ?Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,? and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline.
 Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.
o While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit (Source: Weekly Standard).

Fahrenheit Lie #6
 Even readily available figures are exaggerated for effect in Fahrenheit 9/11. The claims have a basis in reality, making them believable, but are false nonetheless.
 In the film, Moore asks Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, ?How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?? to which Unger responds, ?Uh, I?ve heard figures as high as $860 billion.?
o The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion ? a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S.
o The Institute reports that 60 percent of that $700 billion ? roughly $420 billion, less than half of what Unger ?heard? ? was actually invested in the United States by the Saudi government.

Fahrenheit Lie #7
 ?Moore?s film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family ? principally through [President] Bush?s father?s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president?s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group?s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family ? who own one of Saudi Arabia?s biggest construction firms ? had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton?s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie

-Page 3 of 5-
quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group ?gained? from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore?s movie: the firm?s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.? (Source: Kopel, Independence Institute.)
 ?There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire [Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore?s simplistic conspiracy theory.? (Source: Kopel, Independence Institute.)

Fahrenheit Lie #8
 Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so.
 Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration ?welcomed? the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, ?to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.?
 But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban?s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.
o To demonstrate even further the Administration?s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher ? on the day of the terrorist regime?s visit ? said, ?We don?t recognize any government in Afghanistan.?

Fahrenheit Lie #9
 Moore does more than simply downplay the threat posed to the U.S. by the former Hussein regime in Iraq. He goes so far as to assert that Saddam ?never threatened to attack the United States.?
 If by ?attack the United States? one interprets this claim to mean that Saddam never threatened to send troops to the United States, then Mr. Moore has a point.
 But Saddam Hussein clearly sought to attack the United States within his own sphere of influence, even though he didn?t have the resources to attack U.S. soil from his side of the world:
o On November 15, 1997, ?the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein?s son Uday), ordered: ?American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces.?? (Source: Kopel, Independence Institute.)
-Page 4 of 5-
 In addition, ?Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country,? (Source: New York Times, 12/1/03).
 Saddam Hussein also provided safe haven to terrorists who killed Americans, like Abu Nidal; funded suicide bombers in Israel who certainly killed Americans; and ran the Iraqi police, which plotted to assassinate former President George Bush.

C’mon biltritewave, many of those points you bring up are based on bias and interpretation. Like the proposed VA funding. Just because its proposed doesn’t mean its going to happen. The Condi Rice statement taken out of context? Here point even with your addition was clear. You guys talk about Kerry being a flipflopper by November I wonder how many reasons will be given for Iraq! First there was WMD’S, then links to Al Qaeda, then it was for Freedom and Liberty! But, alas you will continue to justify whatever your corner comes up with and whatever Kerry, or a Democrat or anyone with an opposing viewpoint will be labeled as unpatriotic, or weak, or misinformed, whatever label you choose to hang on them!

HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA
Injured reservist surprised
to be shown in Moore film
Director puts amputee in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ without his knowledge, friend is ‘shocked’

An Army reservist who lost parts of both arms in the war in Iraq was surprised to discover he appears in Michael Moore’s anti-Bush film “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Peter Damon, now recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. from an October incident, is shown in the controversial film in a hospital speaking to an off-camera interviewer, The Enterprise newspaper of Brockton, Mass., reports.

His wife, Jennifer Damon, said neither she nor her husband were aware the footage, from NBC Nightly News, would be used in the film.

“He’s in there,” she told the paper. “I saw it and I told him that he should probably go see it too.”

Damon was working on a Blackhawk helicopter in Balad, Iraq, Oct. 21 when a tire exploded. He appears in the clip with his injured arms in bandages, speaking for about half a minute after a voice-over by Moore introduces that part of the film.

Released June 25, “Fahrenheit 9/11” so far has earned $80.1 million. In its scathing denunciation of President Bush, the film shows graphic footage of bodies of U.S. soldiers in Iraq being burned.

John Gonsalves, founder of Homes For Our Troops, a group working to build the Damons a home, said he learned from a neighbor of Peter’s appearance in the film.

“I was shocked. I would have expected if Peter was in the movie that someone would have at least talked to him about it, which I thought was kind of unfair,” Gonsalves told The Enterprise. “I think for Michael Moore to portray Peter in there without any knowledge is terrible.”

The Brockton paper said it received no response by press time from the film’s New York City publicity firm, Ken Sunshine Consultants Inc.

NBC News says it’s the practice of all news organizations to license its footage and, as a general rule, NBC does not obtain releases from people who appear on their news programs.

But it would be the responsibility of Moore to get permission.

“When we do license footage ? as in this instance ? NBC includes a provision that it is the responsibility of the licensee, not NBC, to obtain all required consents and releases necessary to use the footage,” wrote spokeswoman Barbara Levin

Jennifer Damon told The Enterprise only her husband could comment on the consent issue. The paper said it could not be determined by press time whether Peter Damon signed any release form with NBC.

So you tell me what were Moores Motives fro making this movie??

Joe

And…this one…

HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA
Airman’s funeral used in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’
Family of major livid Michael Moore showed ceremony footage
A maggot that eats off the dead" ? that’s what the mother of a U.S. Air Force major killed in the Iraq thinks about filmmaker Michael Moore, who used footage from the man’s Arlington Cemetery funeral in his anti-Bush movie “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone was killed in March 2003 when a grenade was thrown into his tent, allegedly by Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar, who is on trial for murder
It’s been a big shock, and we are not very happy about it, to say the least," Kandi Gallagher, Stone’s aunt and family spokeswoman, told the Washington Times.

“We are furious that Greg was in that casket and cannot defend himself, and my sister, Greg’s mother, is just beside herself,” Gallagher said. “She is furious. She called [Moore] a ‘maggot that eats off the dead.’”

The video footage shows Stone’s fianc?e, Tammie Eslinger, kissing her hand and touching it to his coffin, the Times reported.

Gallagher says the family doesn’t know how Moore got the footage, but is considering taking legal action against the director.

“Fahrenheit 9/11” opened June 25 in U.S. theaters and has brought in $80.1 million so far.

Joe

Bush’s Intelligence

Basically I would like to ask how any of Bush’s supporters can possibly justify voting for a man who can not even manage to properly quote a well known expression? I am refering to one of the last scenes of Fahrenheit 9/11 when Bush embarrasses himself trying to say “Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Why are people surprised that Moore only tells the part of the story that suits him? The whole story would be boring, and it wouldn’t support his cause. Moore is a political marketer, twisting and bending the truth to make his ideologies and crusades look good… without ever actually lying.

I understand why he does this. He fights hard for his side, because the other side is fighting just as hard for theirs. You can’t complain that Moore doesn’t tell the whole story without also acknowledging that Bush doesn’t tell the whole story, either.

And it’s not limited to Moore and Bush; just about every oppositional concept is the same. Abortion rights, marijuana legalisation, Catholics and Protestants, everyone is grabbing the biggest flags they can wave in the hope that their flags will be bigger than the other side’s.

Somewhere in the middle there is this thing called “the truth”. Usually, neither side will tell it to you straight, so you have to go find quieter people with more balanced views and smaller articles with more boring content.

But most people are more interested in watching the circus than learning the truth.