Fairenheit 9/11


Winnie G
 Share

Are you going to see Fairenheit 9/11?  

  1. 1. Are you going to see Fairenheit 9/11?



Recommended Posts

The movie if opening here this weekend, I have not see its rating but if it as good as bowling for Columbine I am going to see it.

I can smell hockey puck when I smell it and if it is just a Bush slam film I will say so.

I saw the 60 Min interview and it most likely was the best promo for the film only because they could not really find a reason not to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Maureen@Jun 28 2004, 09:22 AM

There are certain movies that should be seen on the big screen, this is not one of them.

M.

Yes! The movie should be buried in the nearest cemetary.

After all, we can't have the general public aware of the connections between the Bush family and the Saudis. We can't have people thinking that the Bush's stand to benefit financially by pleasing the Saudi's at the expense of the american public. We can't have people thinking that all the Bin Laden's were given a friendly bon voyage by to Saudi Arabia with out ANY questioning by the FBI immediately after 911.

We can't have people aware that Bush was planning the invasion of Irak from day one in the white house, and that he knew full well that Irak posed no REAL threat to united states interest. We can't have people aware that the interests Bush is promoting are those of a few giant corporate interests in oil and energy development. (Halliburton etc).

We can't have the american public aware that the Bush administration is essentially using the US military to protect and advance private business enterprise in Irak---and that our soldiers are ACTUALLY just protecting big business, and NOTHING ELSE.

NO--throw that film in the garbage--

Actually, if you really want and even CLOSER look at the Bush administrations tactics and policies, read Paul Oniel's book about his first hand experiences as a close Bush adviser. And then, of course, get rid of that book quick, so that nobody else finds out the truth about BUSH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

We can't have people thinking that all the Bin Laden's were given a friendly bon voyage by to Saudi Arabia with out ANY questioning by the FBI immediately after 911.

The guy who made the call to fly the bin Ladens out? Richard Clarke, the darling of the anti-Bushers. Apparently the former counterterrorism czar was the pinnacle of wisdom when criticizing his former employer at the 9/11 grandstanding -- I mean, "commission" -- but a borderline traitor when it came to flying the bin Ladens out ahead of the lynch mobs. http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

We can't have people thinking that the Bush's stand to benefit financially by pleasing the Saudi's at the expense of the american public.

The 9/11 commission found no evidence of involvement in terrorism by the Saudi government. To hear Michael Moore, if only the Bush family didn't have investments in some of the same investment banks as Saudi princes, we'd have started bombing Riyadh on September 12, 2001. (Of course, Moore & Co. would then promptly have castigated us as bloodyminded imperialists, but there you go.)

We can't have people aware that Bush was planning the invasion of Irak from day one in the white house

As was the Clinton administration, it having been the official policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq since 1998.

We can't have people aware that the interests Bush is promoting are those of a few giant corporate interests in oil and energy development. (Halliburton etc).

We can't have the american public aware that the Bush administration is essentially using the US military to protect and advance private business enterprise in Irak---and that our soldiers are ACTUALLY just protecting big business, and NOTHING ELSE.

Ah yes -- the Marxist hypothesis; economic motives are the only ones that matter. Being a sworn enemy of the United States, firing on our troops, plotting an assasination of a President, planning terrorist attacks in the United States (according to Russian intelligence), harboring terrorist groups (Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Ansar al-Islam), having contacts with al-Qaeda (according to the 9/11 Commission, even though it found no direct evidence of an Iraqi link to 9/11 itself, or the ability of the Saddam regime to exercise operational control of al-Qaeda), violating mandatory Security Council resolutions -- which allowed for the use of force to enforce them -- requiring verification that all WMDs had been destroyed -- none of this matters.

I suppose all this moonbattery is payback for all the Clinton-hatred of the 1990s, what with the Vince Foster "suicide" conspiracy mongering, the Lippo Group/Red China connection, the conspiracy theories about Clinton's alleged involvement in drug smuggling and murder plots in Arkansas. The difference, of course, is that those particular right-wing moonbats got pigeonholed as irrational, while their left-wing counterparts get the Palm d'Or, millions of dollars, and media respect.

I mean, Michael Moore is the political equivalent of Ed Decker. Even liberal commentators acknowledge that he's factually challenged, ludicrously unfair, demagogic, a player to emotions, and utterly incapable of presenting a logical argument without resorting to red herrings. They just don't care; he may be an SOB, but he's their SOB.

Can't convince these people. Just have to beat them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jun 28 2004, 04:44 PM

We can't have people thinking that all the Bin Laden's were given a friendly bon voyage by to Saudi Arabia with out ANY questioning by the FBI immediately after 911.

The guy who made the call to fly the bin Ladens out? Richard Clarke, the darling of the anti-Bushers. Apparently the former counterterrorism czar was the pinnacle of wisdom when criticizing his former employer at the 9/11 grandstanding -- I mean, "commission" -- but a borderline traitor when it came to flying the bin Ladens out ahead of the lynch mobs. http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

We can't have people thinking that the Bush's stand to benefit financially by pleasing the Saudi's at the expense of the american public.

The 9/11 commission found no evidence of involvement in terrorism by the Saudi government. To hear Michael Moore, if only the Bush family didn't have investments in some of the same investment banks as Saudi princes, we'd have started bombing Riyadh on September 12, 2001. (Of course, Moore & Co. would then promptly have castigated us as bloodyminded imperialists, but there you go.)

We can't have people aware that Bush was planning the invasion of Irak from day one in the white house

As was the Clinton administration, it having been the official policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq since 1998.

We can't have people aware that the interests Bush is promoting are those of a few giant corporate interests in oil and energy development. (Halliburton etc).

We can't have the american public aware that the Bush administration is essentially using the US military to protect and advance private business enterprise in Irak---and that our soldiers are ACTUALLY just protecting big business, and NOTHING ELSE.

Ah yes -- the Marxist hypothesis; economic motives are the only ones that matter. Being a sworn enemy of the United States, firing on our troops, plotting an assasination of a President, planning terrorist attacks in the United States (according to Russian intelligence), harboring terrorist groups (Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Ansar al-Islam), having contacts with al-Qaeda (according to the 9/11 Commission, even though it found no direct evidence of an Iraqi link to 9/11 itself, or the ability of the Saddam regime to exercise operational control of al-Qaeda), violating mandatory Security Council resolutions -- which allowed for the use of force to enforce them -- requiring verification that all WMDs had been destroyed -- none of this matters.

I suppose all this moonbattery is payback for all the Clinton-hatred of the 1990s, what with the Vince Foster "suicide" conspiracy mongering, the Lippo Group/Red China connection, the conspiracy theories about Clinton's alleged involvement in drug smuggling and murder plots in Arkansas. The difference, of course, is that those particular right-wing moonbats got pigeonholed as irrational, while their left-wing counterparts get the Palm d'Or, millions of dollars, and media respect.

I mean, Michael Moore is the political equivalent of Ed Decker. Even liberal commentators acknowledge that he's factually challenged, ludicrously unfair, demagogic, a player to emotions, and utterly incapable of presenting a logical argument without resorting to red herrings. They just don't care; he may be an SOB, but he's their SOB.

Can't convince these people. Just have to beat them.

Clinton--who knows what Clinton would have done after 911. What we DO know is that the Bush administration systematically lied to the american people about its REASONS for invading Irak. One thing I am willing to speculate about is that Clinton would have done a hell of a lot better job of selling the case to the international forum. As I said, Clinton may have seduced one person, Bush and his cronies have seduced the entire american public.

If you want to think that the Bushes have no conflict of interest with the Saudis go right ahead, be my guest. I don't buy it. You missed the point if you think Moore was suggesting we would have wanted to do anything to the Saudis post 911. His point was that, were Bush NOT "in bed" with the Saudis, then how do you explain why he let the Bin Ladins high tail it home? If you think that Clarke had the last word on that, then I guess HE is the Pres then, right. What happened to the "Buck stops here". If I remember right the Repubs never let Clinton get away with anything if they could find a way to make him look bad. Too bad the Repubs won't let their little darling Bush-baby stand and take the heat for HIS mess ups.

Contacts with Al-Queda---What a crock of ######. Any excuse to get in and demolish Saddams control over the resourses of Irak. Fact of the matter is, it wouldn't have mattered WHO was in charge of Irak. The Bush repubs would have tried to topel ANY dictator that stood in the way of the control of one of the larges oil reserves on the planet. Perhaps the democrats would have made moves in the same direction. BUT, the plain fact is the Bush idiots thought they could do it by lying and misrepresenting the conditions in Irak. And for THAT tactic, I predict BUSH AND HIS CRONIES ARE THROUGH come November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PD -

Tell me what in the movie Moore lied about. I know that he exaggerates, but he doesn't just make up this stuff out of think air. I keep reading all these articles rebuking the movie, but all they say is, "Moore is a liar", etc. They don't debate the movie point by point. That is what I want to see.

Have you seen the movie? I don't see how people can debate a movie they haven't seen. I saw it, and I recognized when he was just being anti-Bush - and I rolled my eyes a couple of times - but that stuff was spoken as his opinion - not fact. But a lot of the info he had was documented.

If you compare him to Ed Decker, then you're giving Decker more credit than he deserves. Not that Moore is great or anything, but he is factual part of the time at least.

Go see the movie!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

What we DO know is that the Bush administration systematically lied to the american people about its REASONS for invading Irak.

Like *^%^$ you "know" that. You have never provided a shred of concrete evidence that the Bush administration knew that its stated reasons for invading Iraq were false. In fact, most of the supposed "false" charges have not been proven false by any reasonable standard. "What a crock of ####" doesn't really rebut the fact that there were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Take it up with the 9/11 commission. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...17-hadley_x.htm

Clinton would have done a hell of a lot better job of selling the case to the international forum.

To whatever extent that's true, it would only have been because of the left-wing leadership of Germany and France's sympathy with a fellow liberal internationalist. There is a built-in bias of Continental elites against American conservatives, who are not seen to be the right kind of people. Frankly, even with Clinton, I doubt we could have gotten France and Germany to go along; the strategic implications for France (an opportunity to increase its perceived power by frustrating an American foreign policy initiative) and the political opportunities for French and German politicians (appealing to their populations' biases against a media-constructed straw man image of America) were simply too great to pass up.

You missed the point if you think Moore was suggesting we would have wanted to do anything to the Saudis post 911. His point was that, were Bush NOT "in bed" with the Saudis, then how do you explain why he let the Bin Ladins high tail it home?  If you think that Clarke had the last word on that, then I guess HE is the Pres then, right. What happened to the "Buck stops here".

Clarke confirmed that the decision to led the bin Ladens fly home never reached Bush. It may come as news to you that a President does not personally review every decision made by every federal agency. Clarke was the counterterrorism czar, a holdover from the Clinton administration, and he made the call to allow the bin Laden flights. To the extent Bush might be faulted for this under a kind of "buck stops here" rule, it would have been for allowing someone of Clarke's judgment to remain on in the counterterrorism post; then again, liberals expressed no dissatisfaction with Clarke's judgment when they vaunted his criticism of the Bush administration's pre-9/11 approach to terrorism. Since Bush took no part in the decision to let the bin Ladens fly out, it follows that whether he was in "bed" with the Saudis could have played no part in the decision. Incidentally, the Constitution prohibits what it calls "corruption of blood" -- the idea that a miscreant's family may be held accountable for his crimes. The bin Laden family has never been accused of any connection to terrorism. So what's the big deal with letting them leave the country? Especially in a time when (if Moore's contemptuous view of Americans be correct) they were in danger of being lynched by us enraged rabid flag-waving born-again simpletons? (See, e.g., this gem: "'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.'" http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/e...torial/2651756)

Shanstress --

Tell me what in the movie Moore lied about.

See the above. As far as I can tell from reviews, the main evidence Moore gives of Bush's being beholden to the Saudis is the "he let the bin Ladens fly home" charge. Which is false. I won't say a lie, because I don't have any evidence (other than Moore's general reputation) that Moore's misrepresentation of how and by whom this decision was taken, was a willful one, and gentlemen don't accuse others of lying without substantial evidence. Moore could, after all, simply be sloppy and ignorant; his personal appearance certainly reinforces the impression of a general lack of personal discipline, which could well extend to his intellectual habits. Although I must say that the fact that Moore's occasional sloppiness with the facts always seems to lean in the direction of reinforcing his biases that it's hard to conclude he occasionally takes a "this is too good to fact-check" approach to potentially juicy items.

Propaganda doesn't need to contain many lies to be dishonest; one big lie, ornamented by truths marshaled around it, can cause those truths to present a false picture. That way, the propaganda can get credit for being "factual part of the time at least" and still be untruthful. Those familiar with the tactics of anti-Mormons must recognize this.

Have you seen the movie? I don't see how people can debate a movie they haven't seen.

I'm reluctant to further enrich a man I consider reprehensible. That said, I may well see the movie, if only to inoculate myself against arguments like the one you're making. Maybe I'll pay to see "White Chicks" and go into the "Fahrenheit" screening instead.

Back to Cal --

The Bush repubs would have tried to topel ANY dictator that stood in the way of the control of one of the larges oil reserves on the planet.

Why bother? We were already the biggest single customer of Iraq's oil under the oil-for-food program. (So what if corruption in the UN diverted billions of dollars from those sales.) We didn't need to topple Saddam; we could simply have done what the French do: reach an accommodation with the dictator, supply him with whatever he wants, and do cynical business. (I understand Moore makes a fuss in the movie over arms sales to Iraq in the late 1980s, when it appeared that Khomeini's Iran was about to conquer the place. American transfers were dwarfed by the support the French provided. Denmark gave Saddam more than we did. But of course, it was our support that "created" Saddam.)

I guess what amuses me about the reception Moore gets among sophisticates is that it completely gives the lie to their pretense that they are above "simplistic" black-and-white thinking. Geopolitics is convoluted; there is a lot of gray, and even "good wars" like World War II involve considerations of realpolitik as well as morality. But for the modern Left, there is no gray, only black and white; the default position is that America is the guy in the black hat, with evil plutocratic oligarchs (presumably dressed like the little bald guy in "Monopoly") running the show behind the scenes. This kind of conspiracy-mongering would be amusing if it wasn't held in common with some of the uglier political movements of the past century. What Moore offers isn't debate or reason; he doesn't come close to addressing the other side. It's basically a long, self-satisfied superior smirk, playing with emotion to invite the audience to "connect the dots" -- which, upon a reasoned examination, don't show any particular pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cal+Jun 28 2004, 02:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jun 28 2004, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@Jun 28 2004, 09:22 AM

There are certain movies that should be seen on the big screen, this is not one of them.

M.

Yes! The movie should be buried in the nearest cemetary....

....NO--throw that film in the garbage--

Wow...sarcastic exaggeration...whatever turns you on.

IMO, the big screen is best for special effects or cinematic epic films. I'm not saying a person can't or shouldn't go out and watch a documentary or an "American Pie" type film on the big screen - but why bother when you can see them just as well on video/DVD. :P

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

Originally posted by Matt@Jun 29 2004, 01:56 PM

Gosh. How dare people like Michael Moore exercise their right to a freedom of speech? :o

Doesn't he know we only let people we agree with exercise this right? :rolleyes:

Oh man ... not that argument again. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

My heavens! How dare he indeed! It must be through some oversight that Moore isn't being thrown in jail and given the full Abu Ghraib by the evil fascist band of oil-soaked oligarchs that has stolen Moore's dude-where's-my-country.

To a certain whining species of left-winger, "freedom of speech" means the freedom to make the most irresponsible charges without any criticism. It doesn't work that way. People are free to say whatever they want. They are even free to make complete asses of themselves. They are free to show themselves discourteous, deceptive, and dissolute. And I am free to note that they have done so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I have been gone from the board for a wile (work family sons graduations)

It nice to see someone saw the movie before opening his or her mouth.

It has not yet come to my tinny spot of the world yet, but the trailers are running along side the notebook witch I saw LOVED IT by the way, so I know it will get here.

Is it my understanding that most of you all think film clips in the movie are taken out of contexts? Or did Bush just sit on his butt and read with little kids when the country was under attack? From the clips I have seen, he was no president that day.

I remember watching CNN when my husband called for me to place his “Kit” as he calls it on the back porch because he would have no time to say good by before the second plane hit.

My thoughts being if Canada know what was going on why did Bush not even move? Show the children that their president was needed! ?????

Reading green eggs and ham should be interrupted!

That clip alone made me soooo angry I cant wait to see that rest to see if

1.I have been deceived and the movie is full of lies by some of your accounts.

2. He is what others say he is.

Honestly I think the movie was put out at this time to do in Bush’s campaign, if he is what the movie says he is, a war mongering evil man then I’m glad, but to my understanding most die hard republicans wont go see the movie because they cant bare the idea that their God Bless American leader would do such a thing so there they go -> head in sand.

I pray before November comes all Americans are truly well informed before they go to the polls.

I hate blind voters who just fallow the mainstream.

I am happy to say three of my four children voted in the federal election, one voted NDP

New demarcate party, and two Liberal pulses my self and my husband liberal.

When I asked my son why he voted NDP he said it was because the party promises to get rid of taxes on children’s clothing and double the child tax credit, Ok I see his point.

I did how ever ask if he know the NDP was up in till 1956 was the communist party of Canada they just changed the name? He looked at me like a gold fish and finely said “No really”?

“Be informed my son be informed” (Shaking my head)

My other child was running around like a nut case it was his grad and safe grad that night.

My candidate who ran in my aria as Member of Parliament lost but the Liberals won a minority government. That is not such a bad thing, it means the party’s have to work together to pass legislation and make the government and economy work.

I like a minority government, that means all members of parliament are held accountable for the legislation pass and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jets

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jun 29 2004, 03:03 PM

 

To a certain whining species of left-winger, "freedom of speech" means the freedom to make the most irresponsible charges without any criticism.

Wrong or half right, whichever. The left is no less conscious than the right about the criticisms they garner.

It doesn't work that way.

Correct. And incredibly enough, you are actually not alone with this knowledge.

People are free to say whatever they want.

Not here.

They are even free to make complete asses of themselves.  They are free to show themselves discourteous, deceptive, and dissolute.

Yes, yes and yes again. You do have a firm grasp of the obvious.

And I am free to note that they have done so.

As are Mr Moore, Mr Kerry, Matt, Cal, punaboy, Dubya and, gosh, even moi and gosh-golly, even toi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share