This is the best on-point refutation I've seen yet for Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11. It's made all the more valid and powerful by the fact that it appears in the extremely liberal Slate magazine, and was written by a former writer for The Nation, one of the great bastions of extreme liberalism.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

Hitchens Rant (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/more.php?id=1075_0_1_0_M)

This analysis of the "best" refutation does not come to the same superlative but rather, finds it quite spurious.

Actually that's pretty clearly an ad hominem attack on Hitchens, from an obviously partisan source.

But thanks for posting it anyway. Watching liberals rip into one another is always amusing. :-)

There are those who do not find Hitchens to be classifiable as liberal, http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy02212003.html

Myself, I believe that those who want to reduce things to "liberal verses conservative" seek to cloud issues rather than find clarity. Many who consider themselves to be conservative I find to be quite insane, not conservative at all. Same goes for the categorical dissing of liberals, not an attempt to communicate but just an attempt to confuse and color things in a black and white perspective that has no place in an honest attempt to find truth.

All of us humans have a left and right side. Being callous in your lumping may make it easier for you to sustain desired bias as many want to be on the propaganda band wagon. Seeking power is so seductive that many will adopt the divisive terminology in their clamoring to be in a favorable light in the eyes of the sociopathically opportunistic. Be that way

or not.

Well put, and I would agree with a lot of that. Even your point about Hitchens maybe not being a liberal (although you would think that a column subtitled "The stupidity of Ronald Reagan", and the fact that he writes for Vanity Fair, Salon and The Nation would be a pretty strong indicator).

I'm saying that no one is either a liberal or a conservative. I am saying those distinctions are all too easy a ploy that have and are being used to denigrate looking at the evidence oneself, having your own opinion on trusted data rather than the hotly contested mouthpieces of propaganda, no matter how realist they may have been at other times. Weigh the data for its merits, not the typifying of its authors. that puts your bias right out there as a chief judge of what you merit as truthful or not. Beware the jabberwock

or not.

This is the best on-point refutation I've seen yet for Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11. It's made all the more valid and powerful by the fact that it appears in the extremely liberal Slate magazine, and was written by a former writer for The Nation, one of the great bastions of extreme liberalism.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

I just read that a few minutes ago! anyway, I found it interesting and it stated many of my concerns with moore in general but I haven't seen the documentary yet so I can't say how accurate it is.

Moore's penchant for over simplification, exageration and tenuous links never really bothered me much for 2 reasons. 1. Though I think he's a blowhard, basically a liberal version of rush limaugh, I agree generally with his politics so I'm bias. 2. Moore, like limbaugh is very upfront with his bias'. I'd be concerned if he claimed to be a balanced, neutral film maker but he's pretty clear about where his political sympathy lays.

btw - have you seen 9/11 yet?

I have not, but I will eventually. Probably after the election. I do plan to see Control Room and The Corporation. I've seen Moore's earlier films, and I think it's pretty clear where this one is going, but I don't think it's valid to criticize a film I haven't seen. But I would agree with your assessment of Moore in general.

I happen to share a number of his beliefs as well (pro gun control, anti death penalty, etc), but I think the liberal cause is badly hurt by his brand of propagandist extremism.

(I'm not a liberal, though. I'm more of a moderate/centrist/independent type.)

(I'm not a liberal, though. I'm more of a moderate/centrist/independent type.)

I call myself liberal but your description better describes my political views.

I actually made a similar argument about moore hurting more than helping "the cause" in an earlier thread (it was about the 'controvercy' with disney refusing to distribute the movie). On reflection though, I think it will really have little to no effect either way in the long run. Moore's type of movies are so transparent in their goals it's hard for me to see anything significant coming from any of his creations.

One thing I'll give him though is documentaries are now 'cool' and can actually draw a big audience now (thanks in large part to his work), even better is the fact that most documentary makers tend to try very hard to be balanced. It's a win/win scenario for all of us documentary fans out there.

EDIT: Control room is a great example, I can't wait to see that!

How can one refute that George Bush is a stupid frat-boy turned republican stooge in the pocket of big business? That his daddy's connections got him out of serving in vietnam, that he bankrupt three companies before doing the same to America? (I didn't see the movie)....and that his vendetta against Saddam was misguided and mishandled...

I think someone here is voting for Kerry...

The counterpoint rant, it seems, beat me to the booze joke. Hitchens almost makes sense in general, but only if history begins on 9/11 and not a day sooner.

However, I have yet to see the film. It's entirely possible Moore blew this one out his ass, but the rumblings aren't so flatulent as Hitchens at this point.

Hitchens reminds us that art is an essential part of life unless it's done by someone who disagrees with the established conventional wisdom, in which case it's either bold and heroic (e.g. conservative) or excrement (e.g. liberal).

Does nobody remember the Reagan documentary from the late 1990s? Of course, those distortions are part of the tale told. I should go dig up what Hitchens said about the critical brouhaha about the various Reagan projects. Might provide enlightening reading.

History will remember Michael Moore appropriately, come what may.

Yes, it most certainly will.

Haven’t seen the film yet because its not out here yet. But based on an interview I saw with Moor it would seem that much of his annoyance stems from the US media letting Bush say what he wants without questioning him or holding him accountable for his statements.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm.
Does no one want to question who set the stage for ‘catching the president on a golf course’? Who on earth thinks that’s a suitable forum for serious questioning of one of the worlds most powerful men? Its not. It’s a staged photo opportunity and the US media industry is doing its job very well.

Moor is bias with his own agenda. But I think he is raising questions to an audience which sorely needs him. (The US media is not likely to be one unified entity it just seems that way from outside the US, nor do I have any personal knowledge of the US situation)

I loved the paragraph about Iraq threatening the US, rather like the monster under the bed being blamed for the kid not sleeping.

My liberal friend seem to think that Fahrenheit 9/11 is in no way biased; completely evenly balanced. But I laugh at him, and he explains to me the reasons that it is fair, and I say that those are the exact reasons why it is biased, but he pays no attention. So ignorant. And most liberals I know are the same way. Just to let you guys know. I'm also conservative. :m:

I haven't seen it yet either, but I've been amused to read the pre-emptive reviews, and to hear Clear Channels radio in High Dissemble over it. The Busheviks are revealingly afraid of this yokel gadfly. Bush apologists are being clumsy- a better political response would be to shut up, don't acknowledge it, let it pass. But they are holding on too tight. Dubya supporters in the general public are insecure about their convictions, and as a result, dissent makes them extremely uncomfortable: Embarrassing Dubya embarrasses them. Americans opposed to this President, on the other hand, have already come to understand and confront our present national embarassment. Caring is sharing.

So now it's fun watching Bushmen being increasingly provoked across the home front. The war of ideas is vital for our democracy. If we waged it more often, we would have fewer conflicts at home and abroad involving literal bloody overkill.

It is the bloodless conflicts that really get to the point. They are also so much more entertaining, once you've learned that war is no fun at all, nothing like in the movies. An actual publicly-participatory political debate such as is shaping up between the followers of Dubya and the rest of us, is refreshing, enlightening, and entertaining.

Like that familiar formula moment in movies, when the Bad Guy exhibits that first flash of fear on his face, then makes his final revealing move. Michael Moore reminds me of Peter Falk's Columbo character that I watched as a kid: Unbalancing the adversary by pushing their buttons, while playing the fool. I've heard AM radio hosts calling for Moore to be silenced! "Moore is behind all this, and his liberal/commie/pussy/peacenik friends, who are all his mindless followers! Support the Prezident! Support the Stormtroopers!"

Behind this comedy, like all good comedy, waits tragedy. We are nearing a breaking point in America, and the history of Mankind is going to hinge on it. The USA is flirting with fascism, and there will be a chain of collossal disasters if it becomes a full embrace.

Whatever "standards of journalism" mean as we go to the movies to watch a quasidocumentary (are these different times, or what?) I thank Michael Moore from the bottom of my heart for his oafish rabble-rousing: We don't have much time to hash this out in America, before we may slip on the big banana-peel, and break our democracy. Let's confront each other while there is still time to indentify and choose what we really want to stand for as Americans: See you at the movies- and out in the parking lot.

And then, of course, there are the folks who think anyone who doesn't approve of what Michael Moore does needs to be categorized and stereotyped.

Hitchens reminds us that art is an essential part of life unless it's done by someone who disagrees with the established conventional wisdom, in which case it's either bold and heroic (e.g. conservative) or excrement (e.g. liberal).

one of the loveliest things about Moore is that he presents his movies as documentaries, yet once his lies are exposed, all of a sudden it's art and entertainment

no need to make a spin and say that "anti-Moore people are against art". no they're not. we are against dishonesty.

if you're (Moore) going to bullshit yourself to oblivion, at least present your "work" as an entertainment/art piece, not a documentary.

The Busheviks are revealingly afraid of this yokel gadfly
the thing is, Moore knows there is no consequence (except revenue$) to his attacks and distortions, so he goes right ahead and does it. and people in general are sheep and will believe anything... so if this Oscar winner puts out anything, they'd believe him. first thing they'd believe is that it's a documentary as opposed to "art"

so tell me some of the "lies". prove his research is a lie. moore provides references for every claim he makes

i'd love to :D

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37228&page=2&pp=20
look for my post... there are lots of links to sites where they disect all the diarrhia he comes up with and present you his dishonesty and moral bankruptcy

btw, as the original article in this thread suggests, this guy doesn't even have thesis
first he says there shouldn't be any soldiers in Afghanistan, then he says there aren't enough
he says the Patriot Act shouldn't be there, then he says it's too easy to go through airport security

like, what's his point other than making a buck from propaganda and lies?

Unfortunately for America the two party system sucks big time. It is devisive and tends to seperate the people into seperate extreme groups.

Rarely does a moderate from either party maintin power. Politics is all about showing the other side "Wrong" at all costs and not about what is right for America and the world.

Also equally unfortunate is the fact that a three or more party system sucks even worse. It means a winning party would rarely have a majority vote to be in power. i.e. 2/3 would always be against what the in power group wanted to achieve.

Rarely does a moderate from either party maintin power.


I'm not so sure, although if you amended the above it say that when extremists cater to moderates they retain power, but they're still extremists, then I might agree. But your point seems to be that extremists are what "works" in American politics. I don't agree with that at all. (But forgive me if I'm putting wrong words in your mouth, and feel free to straighten me out here.)

IMO, what works in American politics is when candidates appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. Sure, it's sometimes detrimental that we only have two parties, but there is an advantage in having the landscape so consistent. It clearly forces extremists to pay attention to moderates. You simply cannot be elected solely on your political base. And thank god for that!

Unfortunately I think what's happening now is that we have so much polarization that it's difficult for candidates to make that crossover appeal. There are no more "Reagan Democrats" amongst voters, and just look at the treatment Zell Miller has gotten from his own party -- no help from the politicians either -- you either follow the party line, or you're out of the loop.

So I agree with Miller that the Democratic party is no longer the "big umbrella" it used to be. I also think Republicans have screwed up in exactly the same way. IMO Bush has made the mistake of forgetting that it was moderates who put him in office, and given at least the general impression (right or wrong) that he's there to further the conservative agenda, not serve the country. That's hurt his moderate appeal.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11507_The_Gravitas_of_Michael_Moore

another unbelievable garbage from the great [hopefully soon to be late] Michael Moore
he does not only hate the government of America, but its people too


Like Hemingway, Moore does his boldest thinking while abroad. For example, it was during an interview with the British paper The Mirror that Moore unfurled what is perhaps the central insight of his oeuvre, that Americans are kind of crappy.

“They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy],” Moore intoned. “We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”

It transpires that Europeans are quite excited to hear this supple description of the American mind. And Moore has been kind enough to crisscross the continent, speaking to packed lecture halls, explicating the general vapidity and crassness of his countrymen. “That’s why we’re smiling all the time,” he told a rapturous throng in Munich. “You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How’s it going?’ We’ve got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren’t loaded down.”

Naturally, the people from the continent that brought us Descartes, Kant and Goethe are fascinated by these insights. Moore’s books have sold faster there than at home. No American intellectual is taken so seriously in Europe, save perhaps the great Chomsky.


the question is, where will he stop with his quest to earn some $$?
how low will he go?

what will moore do for $$? christ, hes a movie maker who the fuck cares? It's what bush will do for $$ that matters. lets have a little wake up call here: moore- movie maker, bush- leader of the most powerful country in the world. You tell me who's lies are more dangerous.

wanna do a lie for lie comparison between moore and bush? face it, bush tell's more lies/half truths in a month than moore has in his entire career. when bush lies a war starts, when moore lies the critics rape him and he appologizes.

Have you noticed that in a largely liberal forum there isn't one "Best Refutation Yet for Rush Limbaugh's outrageous claim of the week"... why do you think that is? because these pundits, both liberal and conservative, have almost no real impact. They preach to the choir, that's what makes this intense fear of moore so fascinating.

bush tell's more lies/half truths in a month than moore has in his entire career.I doubt that... but bush's most certianly have more of an effect.

yes, yes, it was clearly (I thought) an exaggeration.

Has anyone here actually seen the movie? I mean it does seem awfully pretentious to discuss this topic without actually seeing the movie. I mean it's like being the pope without ever reading the bible.

what will moore do for $$? christ, hes a movie maker who the fuck cares? It's what bush will do for $$ that matters. lets have a little wake up call here: moore- movie maker, bush- leader of the most powerful country in the world. You tell me who's lies are more dangerous.

Wow, once again we agree. This is getting scary, Buffys. (chuckle)

I don't necessarily agree that Bush lies, but I certainly agree that whether he does so and how he does his job is far more relevent than what Michael Moore is doing.

I have a feeling that the reason why the right is so afraid of Michael Moore is for the same reason that the left is so afraid of Rush Limbaugh. Yes, they're very much afraid of him -- how else to explain Al Franken? :D

But my point is this: Extremism requires confirmation. It cannot exist without masses of support. The greatest fear an extremist has is that nobody will believe him.

Hmmm, seems maybe Moore's film is receiving some masses of support. Maybe not because it is extremeist but, rather, refreshing in how it is not the heavily doctored extremism of most media. I really don't know but I would like to see the movie.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000553027

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040627/ts_nm/leisure_boxoffice_dc_10

He's certainly getting patronage, that's for sure. I think it's generally a bad idea to presume the motivation of American moviegoers, but you could be right about that as well.

By the way, I noticed you posted a link to Editor & Publisher. That's one of my regular stops as well. I mainly drop by there to try and get some independent perspective on news reporting (kinda like the Media Research Center without the extreme conservative bias). Of course that's not its main function, but they do some good reporting on the media from time to time.

I have mixed feelings about Moore. Haven't seen 9/11, but watched Columbine. Been reading the critiques of each, and he does bullshit a lot. So does George W., the GOP and Limbaugh.

The liberal side needs their own propaganda machine– Kerry's a nitwit, Al Gore is boring, Clinton has bad press. Franken's funny, but he isn't quite the go getter that Moore is. Moore gives libs a bad rap like the con talk show hosts do. So what? Let's not denounce a man who so valiantly fights for his party politics.

Moore does lack a thesis– need more troops/shouldn't be there hipocracy. However, it makes sense. We shouldn't be there, but if we are, let's do a good fucking job and not botch it.

Moore's bias doesn't matter to the basic truth in the movie– Cheney and Co. are doing a shitty job, and something needs to be done about it.

It really comes down to what you believe, and if someone else agrees with you. If they don't agree, you can hate.

Gonzo journalism is a style of reporting based on William Faulkner's idea that the best fiction is far more true than any kind of journalism - and the best journalists have always known this. Which is not to say that fiction is necessarily 'more true' than journalism - or vice versa - but that both 'fiction' and 'journalism' are artificial categories; and that both forms, at their best, are only two different means to the same end.
~ ~ Hunter S. Thompson

Has anyone here actually seen the movie?

Just saw it. Not a spoiler: I had to wait until today because all of yesterday’s showings were sold out when I got there. I liked it a lot. I couldn’t finish Bowling for Columbine; too much yellow journalism. Fahrenheit is guilty of some of that too, but the basic message is solid and covers many of the anti-Bush points that have been made here on sciforums.

So would you consider the accusations of propaganda to be merely a propaganda smear campaign by the Conservatives?

You mean the accusations of propaganda coming from the right, or the accusations of propaganda coming from the left?

Have yet to hear these accusations from the left, mind showing me some?

blah, blah we can stop speculating now. Just go see the frigg'n movie, it'll make for a much better discussion if the participants know what the hell they're talking about. If you feel that, by paying for the movie, you would be committing the ultimate sin of supporting michael moore then download it from somewhere. I'm sure it's already available at 100's of torrent sites and all the other p2p options.

Oh I agree Bells, notice my post to Zanket, and my post prior to that. I personally don't claim any knowledge on the movie because I haven't watched it yet. I find it beyond pretentious that people are talking about something they haven’t even seen yet. I am eagerly awaiting Zanket’s response.

So would you consider the accusations of propaganda to be merely a propaganda smear campaign by the Conservatives?

For the most part, yes. A lot of the anti-Bush points made by the movie can hardly be disagreed with, they are made so clearly. But I can’t say much more without spoiling the movie. We should have a thread for those who have seen it.

Have yet to hear these accusations from the left, mind showing me some?

Ed Koch, former Democrat mayor of New York, accuses (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_2.html) (spoiler warning) it of being propaganda. But then some of his points, like the Moore statements related by David Brooks, are not propaganda to me at all but rather speak the truth beyond reasonable doubt. I think Koch just doesn’t see the same reality I do, so he calls it propaganda.

how many would go for curiosity sakes, and how many because they hate Bush, and how many because they want to see how low Moore has stooped to? (the last category would be mine)

i really want to, but i'll be damned if Moore gets my money
i'd rather kiss Arafat than do that

will just d/l it in a week or so

let's say F9/11 earns high revenues... what does that tell you?
Moore's views are popular? Moore's moviemaking is entertaining?

i don't understand the whole movie thing - if many ppl go to see a movie that doesn't mean it's a good movie, per se, but that it was marketed brilliantly... because when people go to see the movie they don't know what they'll see until they have seen it
all they know about it is the marketed little snippet they saw (aka the commercial and promotion)

You are really hot and bothered by this F-911 thing, aren't you? Why can't you leave it alone?

I saw the movie opening night. It's real good and I'm gonna see it again in a week or so with a buddy of mine. Of course it's Anti-Bush but what do you expect? There's a lot of truth in the movie though and as another person mentioned, most things that have been discussed in these forums at one point in time, so it wouldn't really be surprising but to see it all at once to refresh your mind, makes ya think. There were a lot of funny parts too making fun of Bush and Co. I nearly busted a gut on the Bonanza part.

Anyhow, I highly reccommend the movie. Anything I say can't do the movie justice or explain it too well (also since nobody wants spoilers). Another reason why I'm gonna see it again is to have it all sink in better because I also watched Day After Tomorrow 15 minutes before Farenheit 9/11. Day After Tomorrow was alright, but I enjoyed Farenheit 9/11 much better if that means anything.

- N

Yeah, that Bonanza parody was a gas. There is a lot of information in that film, repeat, a lot. Most quite hard core stuff with direct confirmation presented right with the claims with various shots of the exact events. The large majority of Moore's claims are not fabricated. That is why the film is getting rave reviews. The confirmed data is overwhelming. Bush and company have received more than a billion dollars from the Saudis over the last couple of years. Compare that with the paultry half million or so per year that is the president's wages. As Moore stated, "Who's your daddy?"

I find this movie more enlightening and truthful concerning Bush's ill will than any commercial news program, brought to you courtesy General Electric and the other hegemonic owners of the media that directly profited from the fabricated war(s).

Have yet to hear these accusations from the left, mind showing me some?

Quite a number of people who range from "slightly to the left" to the "far left" are saying that F911 hurts their cause. I think they have a valid point, just as many conservatives argue that people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh hurt theres. I don't think I need to quote sources on this, as it is intuitively obvious.

Of course, if you have an ideological perspective, then you won't agree, but then you wouldn't agree with my sources anyway, so again there is no point.

At any rate, the only reason I said anything was because of this quote:

So would you consider the accusations of propaganda to be merely a propaganda smear campaign by the Conservatives?

"Senator, do you beat your wife frequently or just every now and then?"

Of course there's a smear campaign by conservatives -- and they look like idiots in doing so. I'm just pointing out that you're doing the same thing they are.

It just never ceases to amaze me the way ideologues on both sides of the political aisle are so completely unable to let anything go once the other side latches on to it. Watching the right doggedly slam every minor piece of detritus from the Michael Moore world is no better than watching the left spit on them every time they do it.

God forbid people should be allowed to make up their own minds about something now and then.

God forbid people should be allowed to make up their own minds about something now and then.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

And as a sidenote, I've never seen Bowling for Columbine. The reason being, everything I've read or what opinions people have told me about Michael Moore (note: not really about the movie itself, but mainly just opinions about him due to *defensiveness* which right there throws out any credibility they may have), made me not want to watch it and I figured the movie would suck. I was about to not see Farenheit 9/11 for the same reasons but I actually went out and I was just like "whoa", heh, it's a good movie. And because of that, I'm gonna finally go rent Bowling for Columbine and see it because while I rarely let anyone persuade or tell me what to do, when I actually do give into peer pressure, it friggin sucks and I realize how moronic those people were.

I just thought I'd mention that since it seems others have hinted to that happening as well.

- N

Considering that you have whole TV networks with a right-ring bias in the US, I don't think it hurts for the left to have a bit of a rant every now and then.

has anyone else noticed that each side of the political spectrum claim the media is a shill for both the right and the left?

If the left has a good point the right screams, "MEDIA BIAS!". If the right has a good point the left screams, "MEDIA BIAS!". This is why the system is fucked, we focus on the media. From what I can see, EVERY side of the political spectrum considers the media bias... I find that strangely comforting.

I'm not that comfortable with it, because the major US media is biased toward money, requiring that it never stray far from coddling popular American assumptions- Pleasing the audience takes precedence over describing reality. Major media will bellow whatever the herd seems most receptive to, with a lot of variation at the fringes giving the appearance of flexibility. In times of crisis, the major media machine insulates the public from troubling doubts, and greatly augments the risk that a high-speed Washington power-trip could end in an accident fatal to our democracy.

don't get me wrong, I think the media (tv and radio especially) are pointless and offer almost nothing of real substance. The thing that comforts me is they don't really display loyalty to a cause or political ideal.

The somewhat recent news-as-a-money-maker issue (24hr news channels, tabloid television and the fact that a few men own everything) is a whole other thread.

Just watched F911. Brilliant movie. So what if Moore is biased? The point Moore is making, minus diplomacy, is that Bush & Co. FUCKED UP. Seriously, it's like the entire GOP dropped the ball and blamed it on Clinton. It's more like the Bushies dropped the ball so they could hold all the Saudi oil money in both arms.

Sickening.

A lot of people seem to miss the jabs he makes at the democrats as well. He's certainly focused for the most part on the republicans but in the movie he doesn't ignore the left's fuck ups either.

The aspect of Farenheit 9/11 that most people believe is likely to endanger American lives is Michael Moore's decision to release it throughout the Middle East. Hezbollah, one of the terrorist organizations the 911 Commission believed to have cooperated with al Qaeda, has, according to these Washington Times and Guardian UK news articles, offered to help Farenheit 9/11's distribution in the region.

'Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah' - Samantha Ellis - June 17, 2004 - The Guardian
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1240819,00.html

'Inside Politics: Help from Friends' - Greg Pierce - June 23, 2004 - Washington Times - Quotes middle-east distributor of Farenheit 9/11 about Hezbollah's offer of help
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040623-123924-2479r.htm

'Overview of the Enemy - 9-11 Commission'- National Commission on Terrorist Attacks - Details al Qaeda/Bin Laden terrorist strikes against the United States and its citizens that occured in December 1992, October 1993, November 1995, June 1996, August 1998, and October 2000. It also details Bin Laden's public declaration of holy war against the U.S. in August, 1996, and his February, 1998, alliance with other terrorist organizations for the express purpose of killing American civilians. The report notes significant cooperation between Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. A senior Iraq official met with Bin Laden in 1994. Contacts between Iraq and Bin Laden were reportedly arranged by the Sudanese, whose country hosted the meeting.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_15.pdf


Regarding some of the inaccuracies in the claims against Bush:

'Evidence of Niger uranium trade 'years before war'' - Financial Times - A scam regarding Nigerian Uranium appears to have concealed actual efforts in the region. Three years before faked documents were revealed, intelligence sources in several countries had intercepted multiple conversations about Uranium trade in the region - including with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nigeria has existing Uranium mines that were abandoned by French companies.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373295039&p=1012571727085

'Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says' - New York Times - Iraqi agents repeatedly contacted Ossama bin Laden and worked with him to undermine the government of Saudi Arabia according to authenticated documentation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html?ex=1088740800&en=ffec5d72643beac1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

'Arms Hunter Fears Fiends Seek WMD' - New York Post - Significant number of chemical weapons containing Sarin and Mustard gas found in Iraq. These were the same types of chemical weapons Saddam Hussein used to exterminate Iraqi Kurdish villages.
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/23807.htm

'Putin: Russia gave Bush Iraq intelligence' - Associated Press - Russia provided the Bush administration evidence of impending terrorist attacks in the United States orchestrated by Iraqi officials following the World Trade Center attack..
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/lateststories/index.ssf?/base/international-15/1087565070114150.xml


http://www.markharm.com

Hmmm, throughout the middle East huh? Well then maybe they will learn about how the American public has been duped and aim their retributions a little closer to the mark.

Here is what I think in general about the rest of your links, Markham, WAR IS HELL. I believe that war is a symptom that so-called perpetrators and so-called defenders exhibit that shows their social structure experiments are failures.

I find that the very important message that Moore is sharing, perhaps a common theme to all of his documentaries, is that big money talks or perhaps more appropriately in the words of Bob Dylan "Money doesn't talk, it swears." The evidence is quite overwhelming if one does not put blinders on but putting on blinders and having blinders put upon people is a common phenomenon. Big money owns the media. It owns the churches and the military and the schools. For the sake of keeping big money in the hands of few, for the sake of preserving disparity, criminal shenanigans profligate and the people are dutifully duped, fooled into believing that all is well. With time the most powerful factions that preserve their positions of authority to preserve their wealth become ever farther from the value of the commons to the extent they even enter the temple of alientation and ignorance to lose the sanctity of life, big time. Its happened before and it is happening now. There will be big changes. The increase of information handling tools to the masses ensures that more will become aware of truth. The past shows that it is not really a majority that is necessary to bring about great change (though it helps). The fall of social experiments in the past has been quite violent. I should hope we find out exactly what a working concept of governing is quickly. Since sociology is the least developed science I bet there are some monumental strides that could be made with a bit of effort in the field, perhaps enough to the extent to allow humanity to survive its own increase in power wielding abilities. Restricting yourself to only one set of "lies" will not allow you to become a thinking representative of life. Go see the movie. Analyze it closely, if you will. The vast amount of data there is verifiable, huge amounts of information far more convincing as to the dangerousness of our situation with this dynasty-corporate control of the greatest military in human history than the pot shots taken by the criticisms I have seen of it yet.

"No, let me finish....what I have to say is, bring it on." -- G. W. B.

Gee, that couldn't be misconstrued for anything but blatant antagonism.

"Top 10 George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11"

10. That actor who played the president was totally unconvincing.

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election.

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported.

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger.

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true.

4. Not sure - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe.

3. Where the hell was Spiderman?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth.

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball!"

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0630Letterman-ON.html

I found this pretty interesting, http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002099.html

Apparently the "kill the messenger" attitude may be more than just the crass denigration of disturbing facts through attempts at character assasination exhibited on this public forum.

I saw F-911. More significantly, I saw an audience in a small American town rock the house with applause, chatter, and various outbursts. I've seen hundreds of movies in theatres, but never witnessed such audience energy before, in front of a projection screen- not ever in a lifetime of going to movies. Michael Moore may not be the sage of the age- But he has touched a very sensitive national nerve, that major media has been dancing around too long.

Americans as a whole are just beginning to think twice about our recent escapades under Dubya's leadership. Once we have thought 3 or 4 or 5 or 20 times, we may earn again the privelege of staying on top of the world in terms of living standards and collective self-assuredness for a while longer. But they're onto us out there- Think fast, America.

Just watched F911. Brilliant movie. So what if Moore is biased?

Bingo.
So what if Moore is biased? He definitely does not claim to be otherwise.

Are Bush supporters trying to tell me that the information presented to the public by the Bush government was not biased? This is laughable. Bush administration failed to mention the simple fact that they had inadequate data to determine whether Saddam was a threat. Even the report by Kay (October 2002) contradicted Bush Administration's claim that Iraq was an immediate and dangerous threat
We certainly didn't get a balanced view on the issue fom the Bush Government.

Isn't it also amusing how if the Bush Government makes a biased assertion, nothing is said. Yet Moore's bias is labelled as 'propaganda'.

It's politics, people. Bias is on both sides.

I saw F-911. More significantly, I saw an audience in a small American town rock the house with applause, chatter, and various outbursts. I've seen hundreds of movies in theatres, but never witnessed such audience energy before, in front of a projection screen- not ever in a lifetime of going to movies.

Everyone I've talked to and saw the movie witnessed the same reaction at the theater. I really wonder if or how much the movie is effective in swaying people's political side. More than likely, the majority of people who go see the movie (and applause) are already anti-bush and share the same viewpoints as Moore. It's understandable how people who hate bush and his policies would cheer at the end of this movie.
I really wanted to watch this movie before it came out. Now, I'm having second thoughts. I'm a little worried about Moore’s neatly packaged “documentary”. Although I have no doubt that what he presents is all factual, he does lead his audience through one path to a single conclusion. When people stand up and clap, they have all bought in to this conclusion and feel a great sense of comfort being in the same room together (patriotic). This, I feel, is wrong and it’s what got America in trouble in the first place. It’s the “quickly jumping on the bandwagon” mentality that worries me. How can anyone be sufficiently informed to make (or change) their political viewpoint in an 1 ½ hr. movie? I hope the movie has the effect of making people go home and START doing their own research and starting discussions (like here on sciforums). But I’m afraid the applause at the end of the movie signifies a sense of completion and “all-we-need-to-know” attitude.
I think the last movie that I was at, and people stood up and loudly applauded was Die Hard … or maybe Raiders of the Lost Arc. I would stand up and applaud movies like that, not Farenheit 9/11.

i don't understand the whole movie thing - if many ppl go to see a movie that doesn't mean it's a good movie, per se, but that it was marketed brilliantly... because when people go to see the movie they don't know what they'll see until they have seen it
all they know about it is the marketed little snippet they saw (aka the commercial and promotion)

So you're complaining about people going to see a movie to fully judge it?

has anyone else noticed that each side of the political spectrum claim the media is a shill for both the right and the left?

If the left has a good point the right screams, "MEDIA BIAS!". If the right has a good point the left screams, "MEDIA BIAS!". This is why the system is fucked, we focus on the media. From what I can see, EVERY side of the political spectrum considers the media bias... I find that strangely comforting.

Can't remember who said this ... but s/he described the condition as a "political Rorsach test." She was talking about Cheney telling Leahy to fuck off, and basically, if you're a liberal, you see this as an example of the administration's arrogance and so on, whereas if you're a conservative, it's somebody losing their temper.

How can anyone be sufficiently informed to make (or change) their political viewpoint in an 1 ½ hr. movie?

A change in political viewpoint can be justified in as little as ten seconds. What if Moore showed Bush saying, “I am God.” That would do it. The actual quotes come close. Like when Bush says, “I represent the haves and the have mores.” I say go see the movie and ignore how other people respond to it.

My liberal friend seem to think that Fahrenheit 9/11 is in no way biased; completely evenly balanced. But I laugh at him, and he explains to me the reasons that it is fair, and I say that those are the exact reasons why it is biased, but he pays no attention. So ignorant. And most liberals I know are the same way. Just to let you guys know. I'm also conservative. :m:

There are ignorant, uninformed opinions on both sides. I'll refrain from saying that ignorant people seem to be more conservative and my liberal friends seem to be the ones that are doing a lot of research, but I guess that depends on the area that you go to (the median income in my town is $140k, 3.5 times that of the national median).

I agree with and would like to repeat Mr. Chips' idea that "those who want to reduce things to 'liberal verses conservative' seek to cloud issues rather than find clarity."

Walter Lippmann said a very long time ago (1920's) that the human mind seems to accept the idea of surreal 1v1 conflicts as opposed to complex systems of interests, although the latter is a better representation of both current events and history. All sides use this in their propaganda: "Us" vs. "The Terrorists", "Liberals" vs. "Conservatives", "Jews" vs. "Palestinians", "Corporations" vs. "People", "Bourgeois" vs. "Proletariat".

In reality things are much more complex than that: I'm for catching terrorists, but I'm against the Patriot Act. I'm for free trade, but against trading with countries that mistreat workers and have 6-year olds with a 12-hour workday.

Yes, F911 is very biased, and Moore is the first to admit it; but so is everythign that comes out of Bush's mouth. What F911 is doing is balancing right-wing propaganda on the same level as Bush's rhetoric. This is causing a lot of confusion, but also a lot of curiosity and research, which is very positive.

I want to throw something out there on this topic. Most of the articles that refute Moore's arguments that he presents in the movie say something to the extent to paint him in an un-american light. Isn't he, in reality, through his bias, trying to help the American public see through the lies that the Bush Administration and the media spoon-feed us? Doesn't this actually help "America"? Hell this is a country about Democracy and the basic freedoms that we are assured through our Constitution, not censorship and lies.

Of course. I'm sure he feels he's trying to help, and I respect that. Reasoned debate and opposition is necessary in a vibrant democacy.

Just remember that street runs both ways.

How does the street run both ways? If the Bush Administration is lying to the public about his intentions in Iraq and the other atrocities that he has done in office, and the media is allowing this to happen without alerting the public to it, how could this ever be a good thing? I guess that my main concern is that the media wants us to be scared, to fear (Saddam, Osama, Liberals, Conservatives, etc...) so that we will support what Bush and his Administration are doing in regards to their policies. If light is shed on what is really happening (bias or not, there are many mainstream media sources that are quoted with nearly all of Moore's claims) then wouldn't we, the public, be in a better position to uphold what this country stands for and what it is supposed to be upholding in the eyes of the world?

A good example: Osama takes out the WTC; this is an act of terror, and therefore a terrorist attack. The U.S. bombs Iraq constantly, killing many civilians, and wreaking havoc, this is an act of terror, and therefore should be considered terrorism, but it's not. It's "counterterrorism". And that’s not even delving into the subject of war-crimes. The act of engaging in the war with Iraq, since we were not acting in direct self-defense, was a war crime, as stated by the U.N. in NSC1/3, 1947. Weren't we one of the major countries that backed the idea of the U.N. Security Council when it was formed? What makes us immune to the international laws regarding engaging in war? Why are we so brazen in breaching these laws?


:bugeye: :confused: :m:

altec: either you read or should read some Chomsky (http://www.chomsky.info). A lot of what you're saying is what he spends a lot of time writing about.

I have read a bit of Chomsky, but don't follow him too closely. I may look into his work a little more. Thanks for the suggestion.

Yup, no prob. Chomsky's favorite example seems to be the incident (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inus/inusframe.htm) in 1986 when Nicaragua brought the US to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which in turn convicted the US for its 'illegal use of force', which Chomsky refers to as 'international terrorism'.

The double standard you are talking about is also the focus of Chomsky's "Pirates and Emperors, Old and New : International Terrorism in the Real World (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0896086852/102-6768406-8724124?v=glance)". Although I have not read it, it comes highly recommended by a friend... and seems to have caused nice contreversy on the Amazon reviews.

How does the street run both ways? If the Bush Administration is lying to the public about his intentions in Iraq and the other atrocities that he has done in office, and the media is allowing this to happen without alerting the public to it, how could this ever be a good thing?

The key word there would be "if".

It's not enough for me, but hey, it's a free country.

I was afraid that by putting if in that statementbecause of yielding that reply.

Bush lied about his intentions to go to war with Iraq: First we were going to Iraq to rid Saddam of WMD. Wait he had none! Ok well then we will justify the war because Saddam must have had ties to al Queda. Wait Bush's defense advisors informed him, in many documents, that there wer eno ties there, and that Saddam and Osama are, in essence, mortal enemies. Ok well then we are going over there for humanitarian reasons to take Saddam out of office. Yet the U.S. has sponsored and encouraged so many brutal regimes in the past?

The Patriot Act was written at night, presented to Congress, who did not have a chance to read it, and then Bush and his Administration pushed the issue so vehemently that Congress felt that they had to pass it. Yet the Patriot Act leads us so close to martial law that it is crazy, especially in a time where martial law is not needed.

What is enough?

On a side note, I just read that refutation that was posted for the topic of this thread, and I had to notice that the majority of it was simply personal attacks against Moore. I saw maybe 3 things that could back up what he is claming, and if you head over the the Michael Moore website, he has literally a couple hundred sources to prove his claims. Thats a little shady for 'the best refutation yet'.

:bugeye: :m:

That's your opinion. Other people's opinions differ. As I said, the street runs both ways. You can believe what you want, but so can everyone else. That doesn't make it so.

So by all means, scream from the highest mountaintop that Bush lied and kids died. More power to you. Doesn't accomplish much, though, does it? When you get tired, and you're ready to come down off that mountain and conceed valid points no matter what side they come from, then we can talk and have reasoned discourse. Not before.

I can understand and respect the fact that everyone has opinions on the matter, and I am not necessarily trying to change your opinions.

All that I am trying to bring into question is Bush's actions. I am not saying that these things are true, because of my opnion, I am saying they are true based on what has been revealed to the American public through many major media sources like The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicles, The London Times, etc...

I am sorry but the fact remains that Bush has lied, and many, about three times the ammount of the people in the WTC incident, have died because of these lies. So I will remain screaming it from the highest mountaintop. I still want to have a reasoned discourse however, but I cannot keep the argument going unless you make an argument that refutes what I am saying, with sources.

Just wondering, what part of my claims is it that you do not agree with? If you could give me a little more specifics, then I can easily go and get you any source you need.

That's cool, I applaud your effort. I think that there are a lot of valid points in this area.

To answer your question, one thing that you can't really prove, only suggest, is the word "lie". In my opinion, the administration greatly exaggerated and exacerbated the situation, and it's becoming more and more clear that they did so to further an agenda. There's a lot of evidence of this and you can draw these conclusions safely. However, saying that he "lied" about it is not a conclusion that is supported by the evidence. It's simply not possible to make that determinatin, nor will it likely ever be. Just one of those things, I'm afraid.

But it's not really necessary. We can reach appropriate conclusions without having to draw that word into the discussion in the first place.

Well if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck but I suppose it could become politically correct to call it something else more convoluted and difficult to use than simple English. Might be favorable to ducks being a handicap for hunters. I can see it now:

"Quick Clem, there's an Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos! Oh, damn, you missed the shot."

Here (http://bushwatch.org/bushlies.htm) is a site about Bush's lies. Lots more sites on Google. Maybe someone can pick out some of the more irrefutable lies to discuss here.

Well if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck but I suppose it could become politically correct to call it something else more convoluted and difficult to use than simple English.

The old "where there's smoke, there's fire" reasoning. I have an ultra-conservative friend who used the same reasoning all through the Clinton administration as evidence that Clinton had had everyone from Ron Brown to... (the name eludes me, that friend of Bill and Hillary's who worked in the travel office who commited suicide?)... that Clinton had had these guys MURDERED. He figured what the heck, look at all these right-wing web sites with all these articles espousing the "incontrovertible facts" of these cases. Where there's smoke, there's fire, right?

Political correctness? Yes, in its most eggregious form: Peer pressure.

I honestly believe there were numerous instances where Bush knew one thing and said another with the intent to lie. Now if you want to spin on out there to Alpha Centauri, Pangloss, go ahead but it makes you and your position look pretty foolish.

I agree. Bush has lied so much that it's not made an issue by the press (there was a reason Bush wanted media companies to be allowed to own up to 55% of a market, up from the current 45%). He now has free reign to lie.