Saw Fahrenheit 9/11 Today

There isn't any propaganda in the movie. Sorry to tell you, this administration is that evil. I mean, if he were into propaganda, he could've gone on and on about Bush knowing about the attacks, but it never even entered discussion.

I promise you one thing - if Bush is re-elected, I plan on emigrating, and personally am going to look into renouncing my citizenship. You may say 'sure, it's words', but I'm dead serious, because I don't want to be part of a country that does nothing while it's leader rapes and pillages the world at large.

If there is no coup if he's re-elected, I'm gone, close and shut case. Yes, it's that bad in my opinion.

-m.

 

I saw the movie at the Savoy Theater in Montpielier Vt. on opening night. While waiting on line I saw 3 04 Prius' crusing by and saw 2 classics parked on the street. I usually don't see one in a day.

 

So far, the only naysayers I see on this series of postings are by those who haven't yet seen the film.

I agree with what our local newspaper op-ed guy said, everyone should see the film knowing full well that it's a biased view and, in some parts of the film, an overly sensationalist view. It should be watched from the perspective of a skeptic and the viewer should wait until the film is over before drawing conclusions. But .. Everyone should see it.

 

You are, of course, entitled to yuor opinion. However, if you haven't actually seen the movie, then your opinion is both uninformed and hearsay.

Propoganda, sure. Moore doesn't deny that he has a particular viewpoint. But everything he presents is factually correct. You can choose to believe or disbelieve it, but only if you've seen it. If you choose to disbelieve it without seeing it, you are no better than the rest of the sheep that the GOP relies on to get into power.

 

I'm right there with you. The sad truth of it is that they (GOP) *want* you to leave. All that much easier to fleece the rest of the sheep.

I hear Australia and New Zealand are really nice places to live.

 

Oh my God. It really wasn't a troll. I hope you see the movie. I'm glad there are movie producers who feel that movies can be religious or political or any other form of expression. I personally like movies that leave me thinking. If a movie makes me want to go learn the truth, all the better. I'm looking forward to this one and also looking forward to Moore's detractors as they try to refute his claims.

If the press won't raise the issues, someone else must. I think the deregulation of media ownership is the single most dangerous event of the 90s. I personally know one of the leaders and chief beneficiaries of this policy change and he is good man but the FCC and congress should have never let it happen. At this point, if large media conglomerates allow stories to be reported that are truly threatening to the congressional leaders or the administration, they stand to lose their monopolies through reinstatement of the regulations that make it impossible for them to maintain their empires that they have so recently created. The news outlets these days are worthless. Just when the information age promised almost instant feedback from the public, corporatization has silenced some of our finest fact diggers and shifted our news sources to censored fluff outlets.

I'm grateful for anyone who reports the tough stories and backs them with facts and dares the accused to deny the allegations. If the accusations are false then the profits will be a target of lawsuits. I somehow think that's not going to happen.

 

It's truly a sad state of affairs when you feel your only option is to abandon your country. I know -- I've had these exact same feelings. Ottawa has been calling my name for the past four years. Never before in my life have I entertained such thoughts.

But the worst thing we could do would be to give up. I tend to be pretty cynical, but even I can see that there is too much worth fighting for in this country to just look the other way and let it be run into the gound.

Don't give up -- you're needed now more than ever.

 

Mercy sakes. Lighten up. People, don't leave the country. If you leave you'll never be around long enough to finally see the light. Michael Moore is a sophisticated bully. He picks on people only when he has an advantage. I'm not talking about Bush or Republicans or Democrats. He made a movie that like minded people will pay out hard cash to see and make him wealthy. Those who don't want to give him money for his tactics are criticised and told to be quiet because they haven't fallen for his line. I think one writer here said something about hearsay. Well, I'd like to remind that writer that many of us have never seen Paris, France or the Pyramids, but we know they are there. I know what MIchael Moore is doing; getting rich by angrifying people. Let me give you who are interested an example of how Moore works. Tonight as a guest on the 60 Minutes TV show Moore berated the so called gun lobby for the inordinate number of deaths caused by guns in this country. Our gunshot deaths number in the thousands while there are practically none in other countries. He's right. He knows the gun lobby isn't worried about him becaue Americans have a right under our Constitution to bear arms just as he has a right to holler about it. What I'm sure he knows and won't do anything about it is our justice system which at the moment is in shambles. Today we have people suffering imprisonment who shouldn't be there and many times more people out of jail who should be in. If Moore wants to go after miscreants he should go after the trial lawyers and their associations. He won't because he knows better. If he starts with them they'll kick his nice person, but good!

 

Maybe once he gets the HEAD of the beast, he can go after the limbs. Our system is corrupt from the top down.

If "angrifying" people is what starts the 'revolution', then let's angrify. The "government for the people" is now run by greed, ego, religion, and utter contempt for the common man.

 

Exactly, Evan.

So many thousands of Americans and millions of others world-wide knew the second George brought up Iraq - or even back in 2000 before he did - we ALL KNEW he was going to go into Iraq, and for oil.

Now, after thousands of innocents killed, our nation worse off regarding terror than ever in it's history, the "media" is asking, why? Where did we go wrong, were we actually misled? Was this actually a mistake?

Of course it F***ing was! We knew that from the start, long before Moore had even an idea to make this film, long before Sept. 11th even happened. But the further the rest of the world goes to waking up to that reality, and the further the right wing f***heads go to discredit the truth and hide it by saying 'f***' to people they don't like and not apologizing to anyone - the angrier we get.

So, whenever I hear the argument of "Well, Michael Moore's movie is out, but GOD HE'S FAT SO DON'T LISTEN TO HIM!" - I get just a bit angrier.

And, I'm sick of getting angry, I want results. And, if there aren't any come November, I don't know that enough of my anger will be left to continue to fight in a country that refuses to wake up to the most horrible thing it's done in the entire history of our nation's existance. (Special thanks to VP Cheney for all the f***'s in this message - if he can say it without Michael Powell kicking him out of office, we all can now!)

As a side note, word is Jeb is planning to run in 2008. Get ready for yet another Bush.

-m.

 

Ah...let the flames grow higher! :guns: It's so hard to distinguish fact from fiction these days. I've been to enough events in person and seen the news stories to follow to know that any reporter or even historian picks and chooses the "facts" to report and is unavoidably biased by his or her world view. I'm reminded of the little parable about the blind men describing their impression of the elephant; each is telling the truth yet none of those truthes give an accurate picture of the whole. I'm sure Ann Coulter and Ted Rall are quite entrenched in their beliefs but I take both with a grain of salt. Michael Moore seems pretty close to the Ted Rall camp. Have you heard the saying that the best lies are those mixed with the truth? As an alternate point of view I offer some material pasted from a source many might consider skewed to the right but the far left posted to date needs a bit of balance.

----------pasted from "The Omega Letter"---------
Allegation: There is no evidence of pre-9/11 collaboration between Saddam Hussein’s government and Osama bin-Laden.

Fact: New documents signed by Uday Hussein prove that there was a direct, collaborative effort to conduct joint terrorist attacks between Iraq and bin-Laden’s ‘group’ that were, in the words of the Iraqi intelligence document, “initiated by our (Iraq’s) side.â€

Allegation: The White House ‘ginned’ up evidence to support a case for war.

Fact: There is clear evidence that until America actually got boots on the ground, that EVERYBODY, from the French to the conveniently amnesiac Al Gore, ALSO expected to find WMD.

Allegation: Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction because he destroyed them all during the weapons inspection’s regime.

Fact: There exists the possibility that those weapons may yet turn up either buried in Iraq, or transferred to neighboring Syria or Lebanon. At best, all we know now is that we can't find them.

Fact: Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on numerous occasions in the past.

Fact: In order to use weapons, one must first HAVE them.

Allegation: The Bush administration did not have Congressional authorization for invading Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Fact: Congress authorized the White House in September 2001, to make war on any country that collaborated with al-Qaeda.

Allegation: The Bush administration used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to remove Saddam at the expense of the war against al-Qaeda.

Fact: America made war on Afghanistan in October, 2001. Documents found there linked al-Qaeda and Taliban to Saddam Hussein.

Fact: America did not go to war against Saddam Hussein until 2003, and after those linkages discovered in Afghanistan had been investigated.

Allegation: The United States acted unilaterally in invading Saddam’s Iraq.

Fact: The United States headed a larger coalition of nations when we went into Iraq in 2003 than his father put together in 1991.

Allegation: The United States ignored the United Nations, and in so doing, defied world opinion.

Fact: The Oil-for-Food investigation has already established that UN officials, French officials, German officials and Russian officials were being paid off by Saddam Hussein.

Allegation: The United States was only interested in stealing control of Iraq’s rich oil fields.

Fact: The first thing the United States restored to Iraqi sovereign control was Iraq’s oil industry.

--------------------------------------------------------

 

pkjodhna, There are those of us here that would dispute many of the facts listed. Agree with a few, such as that he did at one point in time use WMDs But so have we. (No not the Nukes dropped on Japan or chemical defiants but in 2003 in Iraq. Depleted Uranium used in both armor and shells continue to pollute the environments where it is used. ) No time right now to challenge all that I would but the one that I will mention quickly is the makeup of the "Coalition of the Willing" While there may have been a larger number of countries involved, excepting England and Australia, they were almost exclusively small countries very dependant on American foreign aide.

 

Yes, if you believe the government is out to get you and hurt our people, please leave. NZ is quite nice.

The goverment is us. We make the decisions in this country. Run for office, write an editorial, protest peacefully, and make a difference if you are not happy.

I happen to think our government is not out to lie and betray us. I also think Moore is a jerk, and I won't pay to see his commercial.

 

Evan,

I'm not claiming that all of these "facts" are indeed facts (though I have pressed the original author to cite some sources); I'm just pointing out that the same burden of proof falls on the left as it does the right. Without sources it's just so much rhetoric as you so correctly pointed out.

Here's a great article that drives home the point that as a society we're drawn to news/commentary sources that agree with us: Films like 'Fahrenheit 9/11' are turning movie theaters into political stumping grounds . I confess that I've fallen into that trap at times as I suspect most of us here have. I love this quote at the end of the article: "A truly informed person wants to listen to ideas he disagrees with," he said. "It would be a healthy thing for Rush Limbaugh's audience to go to Michael Moore's movie and for Michael Moore's audience to listen to Bill O'Reilly." That's why shows like Hannity & Colmes on Fox are such a good idea. Let the left and the right flog a news source and maybe you'll hear what you want to but maybe you'll learn something.

 

Then you need to see the film and then tell us what is incorrect. It's primarily just public domain news footage. Moore has a large team of fact-checkers verifying the facts. No one has successfully challenged the accuracy of this movie yet.

Is it slanted on one direction? Of course it is. It's not journalism--it's a documentary which doesn't have to present the other side's views. Let the other side present their own views. Is a protest song slanted? Duh. This is a protest movie--get over it.

How does anyone refute that after hearing about the 2nd plane hitting the WTC, that Bush sat there--SAT THERE--for 7 MINUTES while childer read
My Pet Goat." What leadership!

P.S. And it's not a "Hollywood" movie. It's an independent film that's being distributed by Hollywood people.

 

Perhaps,

However the issue with people such as Rush Limbaugh, at least the few (no more than 1/2 dozen times) I've heard him is that he tends to cite truely unrelated things, which though true in isolation are so unrelated to the conclusions that he has drawn that he lacks credibility. Never having heard Hannity and Colmes, No comment there, though a bunch of bombbasts (sp?) squaring off from opposite corners, digging trenchs and firing mortar rounds at each other never solved anything. Again these tv forums tend to throw about poorly vetted "facts". It is time for the "Radical Center" to unite all sides. As a liberal I think I could live with that.