NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I'v heard a lot of conservatives who have been blasting Michael Moore and his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, saying it's all lies, propaganda, ect. So I have a question - have any of you actually SEEN it? And if so, are there any facts that you can actually dispute, and back it up with your own facts?
I'm not looking for opinions here.

I agree that a lot of people shout "lies!" where there are none. However, Fahrenheit 9/11 is undoubtedly propoganda, even Michael Moore admits this. There are no lies, but he leaves out some facts. But still, it's no worse than what FOX News puts out 24/7.

I agree that a lot of people shout "lies!" where there are none. However, Fahrenheit 9/11 is undoubtedly propoganda, even Michael Moore admits this. There are no lies, but he leaves out some facts. But still, it's no worse than what FOX News puts out 24/7.

I agree...definately leftist propaganda trying to influence the 2004 elections, its not ALL lies, he just conveniently leaves out one side of the story

Ok, I'v heard a lot of conservatives who have been blasting Michael Moore and his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, saying it's all lies, propaganda, ect. So I have a question - have any of you actually SEEN it? And if so, are there any facts that you can actually dispute, and back it up with your own facts?
I'm not looking for opinions here.
Here is the most comprehensive site: Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)
I haven't seen the movie because I refuse to support it with my money. After contemplating paying for another movie and sneaking in, I decided instead to simply read the transcript (http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088491633&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&) a couple times.

Notice that Dave Kopel tries only to address factual lies and misrepresentations. The manipulation is not primarily on this level, but in the powerful editorial composition, music cueing, narration, biased selection of material, etc. Triumph of the Will didn't contain any lies persay, but that film's message can hardly be called truth either.

I believe there is a thread about this already that you can read through. Additionally, there is a decent article about it somewheres at http://life.short.be/ (in the rants section I think.)

I agree that a lot of people shout "lies!" where there are none. However, Fahrenheit 9/11 is undoubtedly propoganda, even Michael Moore admits this. There are no lies, but he leaves out some facts. But still, it's no worse than what FOX News puts out 24/7.
no no no.. propaganda is what you see on CNN

no no no.. propaganda is what you see on CNN
And FOX for that matter, but are you saying that F9/11 isn't propaganda? It is what you implied.

Here is the most comprehensive site: Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)
I haven't seen the movie because I refuse to support it with my money. After contemplating paying for another movie and sneaking in, I decided instead to simply read the transcript (http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088491633&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&) a couple times.

Notice that Dave Kopel tries only to address factual lies and misrepresentations. The manipulation is not primarily on this level, but in the powerful editorial composition, music cueing, narration, biased selection of material, etc. Triumph of the Will didn't contain any lies persay, but that film's message can hardly be called truth either.

how do you know it's so comprehensive if you haven't seen the movie? maybe the guy missed something! you never know!

I haven't seen the movie because I refuse to support it with my money.
You should see it, even if you disagree with Moore. It's a very funny film.

Here is the most comprehensive site: Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)
I haven't seen the movie because I refuse to support it with my money. After contemplating paying for another movie and sneaking in, I decided instead to simply read the transcript (http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088491633&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&) a couple times.

Notice that Dave Kopel tries only to address factual lies and misrepresentations. The manipulation is not primarily on this level, but in the powerful editorial composition, music cueing, narration, biased selection of material, etc. Triumph of the Will didn't contain any lies persay, but that film's message can hardly be called truth either.Except most of what Kopel calls "deceits" are really just differences in interpretation. Moore's film doesn't have deceits in it--it has an opinion, and a very strong one at that. Moore has a particular way of looking at the available facts and he creates a very coherent and powerful narrative. There are other narratives that can be built using the same facts--they're not as powerful in my opinion, but they are plausible.

The reason that Moore's narrative was so powerful to me was that I didn't learn much of anything I didn't already know--the one detail I didn't know was that Karzai had ties to Unocal. Everything else was old news. The thing that was most powerful was the way the deceits of Bush and his administration were lined up side by side in one long narrative. It wasn't the individual details--it was the more powerful sum of those parts.

how do you know it's so comprehensive if you haven't seen the movie? maybe the guy missed something! you never know!
My friend and I have watched the movie and seen that sight. The sight is pretty accurate. (Check the article in the rants section of http://life.short.be/ )

And honestly, you should try as hard as you can to find your own reasons to believe/disbelieve the film. If you recognize it as propaganda then you should find as many facts about the film as you can. Otherwise you're making a less informed decision on who to vote for.

My friend and I have watched the movie and seen that sight. The sight is pretty accurate. (Check the article in the rants section of http://life.short.be/ )

i wasn't serious, you know. i don't think moore did anything other than choose facts that back up his opinion and use them. anyone who wants to make an effective or controversial argument does the same thing. it's an old rhetorical strategy.

and i thought the movie kicked ass.

Ok, I'v heard a lot of conservatives who have been blasting Michael Moore and his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, saying it's all lies, propaganda, ect. So I have a question - have any of you actually SEEN it? And if so, are there any facts that you can actually dispute, and back it up with your own facts?
I'm not looking for opinions here.

You know, even if you disagree with Moore's interpretations and even if you believe he lies (which he doesn't), if you get nothing else from the movie, the seven minutes Bush sat there after he was informed of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center says all you need to know about Bush to help you decide whether or not this man should be the leader of the free world.

You know, even if you disagree with Moore's interpretations and even if you believe he lies (which he doesn't), if you get nothing else from the movie, the seven minutes Bush sat there after he was informed of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center says all you need to know about Bush to help you decide whether or not this man should be the leader of the free world.
That's a good point. Although...one day at work, a guy was trying to defend Bush on this...
He didn't use the BS "He didn't want to scare the kids" line either. He was saying that Bush was just in shock. He said things like, "Ya know, no one knew what the hell was going on. Bush was surprised by the attacks and didn't know what to do."

I'm sorry, but that's a shitty excuse. A president has to be a person who can get on the ball about things concerning national security. Any defense you put up for Bush not doing anything isn't good enough.

That's a good point. Although...one day at work, a guy was trying to defend Bush on this...
He didn't use the BS "He didn't want to scare the kids" line either. He was saying that Bush was just in shock. He said things like, "Ya know, no one knew what the hell was going on. Bush was surprised by the attacks and didn't know what to do."

I'm sorry, but that's a shitty excuse. A president has to be a person who can get on the ball about things concerning national security. Any defense you put up for Bush not doing anything isn't good enough.

Yeah I agree with you. For you and me to sit there and shock is one thing. For our President to not be the first to jump up and start rallying the troops, even if nothing could be done, speaks volumes about his leadership and ability to handle pressure under fire.

Maybe that's why he chose not to serve in Vietnam.

And FOX for that matter, but are you saying that F9/11 isn't propaganda? It is what you implied.
From a young age we are taught to accept propaganda :gundge:

You should see it, even if you disagree with Moore. It's a very funny film.
It sure is. That is the one thing liberal wackos (Michael Moore, Al Franken) have over conservative wackos (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reily) We're hilarious and they're not.

It sure is. That is the one thing liberal wackos (Michael Moore, Al Franken) have over conservative wackos (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reily) We're hilarious and they're not.

Yeah but they're a hell of a lot more scarier than us.

I'm sorry, but that's a shitty excuse. A president has to be a person who can get on the ball about things concerning national security. Any defense you put up for Bush not doing anything isn't good enough.
Right. He should have been up in his standby F-18 and flying combat air patrols within 5 minutes. Scramble, flyboy!

I wonder how long it took FDR to do anything useful after he heard about Pearl Harbor? What exactly did you want Bush to do, anyway? What did you do for the first 7 minutes (or the first 70) after you heard of the attacks?

Yeah I agree with you. For you and me to sit there and shock is one thing. For our President to not be the first to jump up and start rallying the troops, even if nothing could be done, speaks volumes about his leadership and ability to handle pressure under fire.

Maybe that's why he chose not to serve in Vietnam.
"rallying up the troops" is not always the best way to solve a problem and because the Americans have done thus, there will be un-doubtably more attacks. The thing is that their beliefs ((terrorists)) have been confirmed to their wishes, americans are now murders and it's ok to strike back. :mp5:

Yeah but they're a hell of a lot more scarier than us.
more scarier... ugh... learn how to use proper grammar.

CLAIM: In the Movie F9/11 Moore makes the claim that President Bush authorized Bin laden family members and Saudis to be flown out of the country (USA) on 9/11. This is supposed to be evidence of a corrupt "Bush-Saudi" nexus.

FACT: In May, former counter terrorism czar Richard Clarke testified under oath to the 9/11 commision and took sole repsonsibility for authorization of the flights. "It didn’t get any higher than me,” he told The Hill newspaper. "On 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

Since the release of Moore's film Clarke has admitted to the Associated Press that a central premise of Moore's film is "a mistake." Clarke explained his reason for doing so when he said, "After 9/11, I think the Saudis were perfectly justified ... in fearing the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country. When they asked to evacuate their citizens ... I thought it was a perfectly normal request,"

SOURCES:

1) http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx

2) http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/1/00111.shtml

3) http://bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/saudiflyaway.htm

"rallying up the troops" is not always the best way to solve a problem and because the Americans have done thus, there will be un-doubtably more attacks. The thing is that their beliefs ((terrorists)) have been confirmed to their wishes, americans are now murders and it's ok to strike back. :mp5:

Well he should have done something, is the point. My guess is he wanted to see how "My Pet Goat" ended. What he did do months after the fact, if you're referring to Iraq, undoubtedly will be remembered as the best recruiting tool for Al Queda that could have ever happened to them.

CLAIM: In the Movie F9/11 Moore makes the claim that President Bush authorized Bin laden family members and Saudis to be flown out of the country (USA) on 9/11. This is supposed to be evidence of a corrupt "Bush-Saudi" nexus.

FACT: In May, former counter terrorism czar Richard Clarke testified under oath to the 9/11 commision and took sole repsonsibility for authorization of the flights. "It didn’t get any higher than me,” he told The Hill newspaper. "On 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

Since the release of Moore's film Clarke has admitted to the Associated Press that a central premise of Moore's film is "a mistake." Clarke explained his reason for doing so when he said, "After 9/11, I think the Saudis were perfectly justified ... in fearing the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country. When they asked to evacuate their citizens ... I thought it was a perfectly normal request,"

SOURCES:

1) http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx

2) http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/1/00111.shtml

3) http://bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/saudiflyaway.htm

and here is a reponse to this standard criticism:

What does the film say about the Saudi and bin laden family flights out of the country after 9/11?

One thing the film does NOT say, is that these flights left the county while other flights were grounded. Rather, the film says these flights left the country after September 13. These facts are based on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, “After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12.

Some critics have said that the film hides the fact that former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke approved these flights. Is this criticism valid?

Absolutely not. If the film were trying to hide Clarke’s involvement, we would not have included a visual reproduction of the actual New York Times article about the White House decision to approve the flights that prominently mentions Clarke’s name. Clarke has testified, “Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.

Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke says he would approve these flights again. Doesn’t this undermine the film’s point?

Absolutely not. The main question raised by the film, which neither Richard Clarke nor anyone at the White House has ever answered, is why? Why did this happen? What exactly was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country so soon after the worst attack in U.S. history? Why did these Saudi Royals and bin laden family members receive such special treatment, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis? Imagine if the hijackers were North Koreans. It is inconceivable that a group of North Koreans, let alone relatives of the individual who had mastermind the attack, would have been given a one-way ticket out of the country with the cooperation of the White House as soon as airspace was open. Or Imagine President Clinton facilitating the exit of members of the McVeigh out of the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. The bottom line is that we really do not know why it was necessary for the White House to approve the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and “the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged,” according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.

Well he should have done something, is the point. My guess is he wanted to see how "My Pet Goat" ended. What he did do months after the fact, if you're referring to Iraq, undoubtedly will be remembered as the best recruiting tool for Al Queda that could have ever happened to them.

See he did do something though, just probably not the right thing. :eek:

more scarier... ugh... learn how to use proper grammar.

You know, I was just joking with the guy....ugh

You know, I was just joking with the guy....ugh

lmao :mad: :headbang: POW POW :mp5: :sniper: XD XD XD TERROR FORCE POWER ***IGNITE***

CLAIM: Around the End of the film, Moore tries to create the impression that the Bush Administration mislead on the "Iraq-al-Qaeda Connection" and implied that Saddam Hussein may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

EX: As "proof" of this, Moore plays a video tape of National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleeza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” This gives the obvious impression that the Bush Administration intentionally lied about Iraq.

FACT: Moore only played half the quote. The entire quote was, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

Ms. Rice actually said the opposite of what Moore implies she said. This is how Moore misleads without having to say a false word. Why would Michael Moore do that kind of editing? For what purpose?

SOURCES:

1) http://www.dailyjolt.com/forum/politics/read.html?id=80797

2) http://moorewatch.com/index.php/759/

3) http://bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/iraq911.htm

and here is a reponse to this standard criticism:

What does the film say about the Saudi and bin laden family flights out of the country after 9/11?

One thing the film does NOT say, is that these flights left the county while other flights were grounded. Rather, the film says these flights left the country after September 13. These facts are based on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, “After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12.

Some critics have said that the film hides the fact that former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke approved these flights. Is this criticism valid?

Absolutely not. If the film were trying to hide Clarke’s involvement, we would not have included a visual reproduction of the actual New York Times article about the White House decision to approve the flights that prominently mentions Clarke’s name. Clarke has testified, “Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.

Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke says he would approve these flights again. Doesn’t this undermine the film’s point?

Absolutely not. The main question raised by the film, which neither Richard Clarke nor anyone at the White House has ever answered, is why? Why did this happen? What exactly was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country so soon after the worst attack in U.S. history? Why did these Saudi Royals and bin laden family members receive such special treatment, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis? Imagine if the hijackers were North Koreans. It is inconceivable that a group of North Koreans, let alone relatives of the individual who had mastermind the attack, would have been given a one-way ticket out of the country with the cooperation of the White House as soon as airspace was open. Or Imagine President Clinton facilitating the exit of members of the McVeigh out of the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. The bottom line is that we really do not know why it was necessary for the White House to approve the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and “the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged,” according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.

bravo! :)

CLAIM: Around the End of the film, Moore tries to create the impression that the Bush Administration mislead on the "Iraq-al-Qaeda Connection" and implied that Saddam Hussein may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

EX: As "proof" of this, Moore plays a video tape of National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleeza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” This gives the obvious impression that the Bush Administration intentionally lied about Iraq.

FACT: Moore only played half the quote. The entire quote was, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

Ms. Rice actually said the opposite of what Moore implies she said. This is how Moore misleads without having to say a false word. Why would Michael Moore do that kind of editing? For what purpose?

SOURCES:

1) http://www.dailyjolt.com/forum/politics/read.html?id=80797

2) http://moorewatch.com/index.php/759/

3) http://bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/iraq911.htm

I find it interesting that your only source is right-wing rags which clearly have an agenda, and it's not the truth.

That being said, you deny that, even through this year, Dick Cheney wasn't making speeches arguing that there is a connection between Al Queda and Sadam Hussein, even after the 9/11 commission de-bunked it? That they cooked the books on the intelligence to skew their point? That they accepted discredited intelligence from the likes of Chalabi over those at the CIA who said that there was not enough evidence and that the evidence was poor? You cleverly ignore these facts, just as the Bush administration ignored their "facts", to skew your point.

CLAIM: Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration “welcomed” the official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.” He tries to make the Bush Administration appear symethetic to the Taliban.

FACT: Moore's claim about the president's intentions seems to be unsubstantiated by any evidence. In Fact, on that same day of the visit, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan."

SOURCES:

1) http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh01032003.html

2) http://bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/talibanpipe.htm

I find it interesting that your only source is right-wing rags which clearly have an agenda, and it's not the truth.

What difference does it make? You seem to be defending Moore is a left wing rag and clearly has an agenda. Why the double standard?

CLAIM: Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration “welcomed” the official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.” He tries to make the Bush Administration appear symethetic to the Taliban.

FACT: Moore's claim about the president's intentions seems to be unsubstantiated by any evidence. In Fact, on that same day of the visit, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan."

SOURCES:

1) http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh01032003.html

2) http://bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/talibanpipe.htm

Actually Bush's record on "flip-flopping" when it comes to his policies is well documented.

Now I'm not answering any of your questions anymore until you answer mine from my previous post. You keep throwing the same neo-con garbage out there that's been de-bunked for months, but when hit with questions, ignore them and change the subject.

Like I said, standard right-wing operating proceedure.

Right. He should have been up in his standby F-18 and flying combat air patrols within 5 minutes. Scramble, flyboy!

I wonder how long it took FDR to do anything useful after he heard about Pearl Harbor? What exactly did you want Bush to do, anyway? What did you do for the first 7 minutes (or the first 70) after you heard of the attacks?
Well, I was in English Class, which was taught by Mrs. Satan. She turned on the TV (as the principal suggested), saw it, said, oh...now let's talk more about verbs (and turned it off). It's not like I was in a position to do anything, but ask people that know me. They'll say I'm usually one of the first to act.

What difference does it make? You seem to be defending Moore is a left wing rag and clearly has an agenda. Why the double standard?

Because the points you make to discredit Moore have been shown to be dishonest. Moore makes no secret about him drawing conclusions based on the facts. You are attacking his facts, rather than arguing his conclusions. No matter how you spin it, the facts are the facts.

P.S.....by "right-wing rag" I was referring to your sources. You might try some diversity when looking for your opinions. The bi-partisan 9/11 commission report (which Bush fought tooth and nail from happening) might be a good place to start.

CLAIM: Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration “welcomed” the official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.” He tries to make the Bush Administration appear symethetic to the Taliban.

FACT: Moore's claim about the president's intentions seems to be unsubstantiated by any evidence. In Fact, on that same day of the visit, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan."

SOURCES:

1) http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh01032003.html

2) http://bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/talibanpipe.htm
So Bush admits he doesn't know there is a govt in Afganistan? Geesh, you make Bush souind dumb...or ignorant or both...

The main question raised by the film, which neither Richard Clarke nor anyone at the White House has ever answered, is why? Why did this happen? What exactly was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country so soon after the worst attack in U.S. history? Why did these Saudi Royals and bin laden family members receive such special treatment, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis?

REASON: According to Clarke, "fearing the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country" is what motivated the decision. Richard Clarke already answered that question. Both you and Moore should do a little more research.

Also, the 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of them and asked many of them "detailed questions." "Nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country," the commission stated.

Should Afghanistan and Iraq's new leaders be given the title "Governor"?

So Bush admits he doesn't know there is a govt in Afganistan? Geesh, you make Bush souind dumb...or ignorant or both...

When the U.S. doesn't "recognize" a government in a country, that means we do not view that government as being a "legitimate" one. This is usually applied to military coups in rogue states. You lefties are bigger idiots than I thought.

When the U.S. doesn't "recognize" a government in a country, that means we do not view that government as being a "legitimate" one. This is usually applied to military coups in rogue states. You lefties are bigger idiots than I thought.

nah, just that guy. some people just are kind of ignorant. both sides have 'em, too, so don't go sounding all hyper-intelligent yourself.

When the U.S. doesn't "recognize" a government in a country, that means we do not view that government as being a "legitimate" one. This is usually applied to military coups in rogue states. You lefties are bigger idiots than I thought.
But isn't the state in Afghanistan a result of CIA actions in Afghanistan (psst...the correct answer is: yes).

REASON: According to Clarke, "fearing the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country" is what motivated the decision. Richard Clarke already answered that question. Both you and Moore should do a little more research.

Also, the 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of them and asked many of them "detailed questions." "Nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country," the commission stated.

So you're actually saying that, knowing that Saudis were involved, knowing that members of the same family that the leader of the terrorists came from is on the flight, they ran a background check, asked if they were transporting any fruits and vegetables, and sent them on their way? What detailed questions would they even know to ask that soon after the tragedy? How about sorting the facts first, keeping them around to do follow-up, making them go "down town" to answer a few questions? Over 3000 people were killed, you would think that even if they weren't involved they might KNOW something that could help with the case? Why the rush to let them leave?

So you're actually saying that, knowing that Saudis were involved, knowing that members of the same family that the leader of the terrorists came from is on the flight, they ran a background check, asked if they were transporting any fruits and vegetables, and sent them on their way? What detailed questions would they even know to ask that soon after the tragedy? How about sorting the facts first, keeping them around to do follow-up, making them go "down town" to answer a few questions? Over 3000 people were killed, you would think that even if they weren't involved they might KNOW something that could help with the case? Why the rush to let them leave?

He said they though that the Suadis could get upset, angry or victimized and their feelings are more important than 9/11

He said they though that the Suadis could get upset, angry or victimized and their feelings are more important than 9/11

So your saying Bush was "sensitive". LMAO Sounds as logical as any reason.

Because the points you make to discredit Moore have been shown to be dishonest. Moore makes no secret about him drawing conclusions based on the facts. You are attacking his facts, rather than arguing his conclusions. No matter how you spin it, the facts are the facts.

P.S.....by "right-wing rag" I was referring to your sources. You might try some diversity when looking for your opinions. The bi-partisan 9/11 commission report (which Bush fought tooth and nail from happening) might be a good place to start.

No they haven't. Moore draws "opinions" based on half facts and is good at misleading without having to utter a false world. Did you read my post about Condoleeza Rice? The guy who runs Bowlingfortruth.com is not a right-winger. He adds sharp criticisms of certain Bush policies, namely the USA PATRIOT ACT. You should read the content of the arguements on the site before you falsely assume that disliking Moore means being a right-winger.

SOURCE: http://bowlingfortruth.com/moore/online/patriotact.htm

You lefties can take your "diversity" and shove it! I see antibush sentiments everyday.

No they haven't. Moore draws "opinions" based on half facts and is good at misleading without having to utter a false world. Did you read my post about Condoleeza Rice? The guy who runs Bowlingfortruth.com is not a right-winger. He adds sharp criticisms of certain Bush policies, namely the USA PATRIOT ACT. You should read the content of the arguements on the site before you falsely assume that disliking Moore means being a right-winger.

SOURCE: http://bowlingfortruth.com/moore/online/patriotact.htm

You lefties can take your "diversity" and shove it! I see antibush sentiments everyday.

I've seen his sight and you can have it.

His lies about Bowling for Columbine are well documented as well; this guy has a vendetta about Michael Moore and is not impartial to say the least. Then again, neither am I. Neither is Michael Moore. That's the point: we are honest with the facts, and not afraid to make an opinion on it. You guys are dishonest with the facts, and will make up anything to support the lies. You guys figure if enough people repeat a lie, it becomes the truth. Well not this year; this year lies are lies and we're calling you on it.

And Condeleesa Rice is one of the most evasive, dishonest people there are when it comes to defending her pal Bush.

So you're actually saying that, knowing that Saudis were involved, knowing that members of the same family that the leader of the terrorists came from is on the flight, they ran a background check, asked if they were transporting any fruits and vegetables, and sent them on their way? What detailed questions would they even know to ask that soon after the tragedy? How about sorting the facts first, keeping them around to do follow-up, making them go "down town" to answer a few questions? Over 3000 people were killed, you would think that even if they weren't involved they might KNOW something that could help with the case? Why the rush to let them leave?

If the investigations of the FBI and the 9/11 Commission don't meet your satisfaction because the results aren't to your liking, then by all means, feel free to conduct your own inept investigation or better yet, lobby for another independent or bipartison commission to waste more tax payer money investigating the incident.

If the investigations of the FBI and the 9/11 Commission don't meet your satisfaction because the results aren't to your liking, then by all means, feel free to conduct your own inept investigation or better yet, lobby for another independent or bipartison commission to waste more tax payer money investigating the incident.

considering the money of future tax payers has already been spent by the war, what's a little more?

If the investigations of the FBI and the 9/11 Commission don't meet your satisfaction because the results aren't to your liking, then by all means, feel free to conduct your own inept investigation or better yet, lobby for another independent or bipartison commission to waste more tax payer money investigating the incident.

Cleverly, the Bush administration has rigged it to where that portion of the report won't be released until after the November election.

Which begs the question: you haven't read the report, have you? Since you have no idea what it says, you haven't right?

I've seen his sight and you can have it.

His lies about Bowling for Columbine are well documented as well; this guy has a vendetta about Michael Moore and is not impartial to say the least. Then again, neither am I. Neither is Michael Moore. That's the point: we are honest with the facts, and not afraid to make an opinion on it. You guys are dishonest with the facts, and will make up anything to support the lies. You guys figure if enough people repeat a lie, it becomes the truth. Well not this year; this year lies are lies and we're calling you on it.

And Condeleesa Rice is one of the most evasive, dishonest people there are when it comes to defending her pal Bush.

Why not try defending Moore's tricky editing of Condi's remarks and attempt to give your arguements some actual credibility instead of smearing sources you can't dipsute and implying that I am "dishonest with the facts" when all I have done is give you facts?

Cleverly, the Bush administration has rigged it to where that portion of the report won't be released until after the November election.

Which begs the question: you haven't read the report, have you? Since you have no idea what it says, you haven't right?

I have read the parts that have gotten the most media coverage and criticisms. Why don't you read it? You are obviously going to make sorry ass excusses as to why every investigation doesn't confrom to your views so I should probably stop wasting my time with you.

Why not try defending Moore's tricky editing of Condi's remarks and attempt to give your arguements some actual credibility instead of smearing sources you can't dipsute and implying that I am "dishonest with the facts" when all I have done is give you facts?

Again, stop ignoring facts I have presented to you: why has the administration, even after the 9/11 commission said there was no link between Al Queda and Saddam, continue to say there is a link? How about the PDB from August, which she claimed was an "historical document" and didn't require Bush to shorten his vacation to deal with? Tricky editing? How about Bush's tricky editing of his reason's for going into Iraq? Are we on reason four now?

I have read the parts that have gotten the most media coverage and criticisms. Why don't you read it? You are obviously going to make sorry ass excusses as to why every investigation doesn't confrom to your views so I should probably stop wasting my time with you.

It's alright I'll stop wasting time with you; you've obviously been "ditto-head-ized"

I find it interesting that your only source is right-wing rags which clearly have an agenda, and it's not the truth.

That being said, you deny that, even through this year, Dick Cheney wasn't making speeches arguing that there is a connection between Al Queda and Sadam Hussein, even after the 9/11 commission de-bunked it?

What the 9/11 Commission Panel Actually Said:

“The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin* to cease [support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Northern Iraq] and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda*.

"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 5]

Iraq not responding does not equal a “rejection” when we know that it was not the last time al-Qaeda members and affiliates were operating from inside Iraq.

“With al Qaeda at its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic Army that included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all [terrorist] groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 3]

Meaning at least one terrorist group from Iraq (possibly more) allied themselves with al-Qaeda. The Commission NEVER disputes the fact that al-Qaeda and Iraq had connections, the commission does however say that, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." In other words, we struck before Saddam and Bin Laden cooperated in murdering Americans.

The Commission never disputes the FACT that in 1998 (Before Bush ever came into office) the Justice Department under the Clinton administration issued an indictment for UBL and cited a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The indictment by the Grand Jury also said “...al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq,”

Proof that the U.S. government was already looking at the connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda before George W. Bush ever took office as President of the United States. Look at Clinton quotes at bottom. Also, six senior Clinton administration national security officials are on the record citing an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection.

What the 9/11 Commission Panel Actually Said:

“The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin* to cease [support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Northern Iraq] and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda*.

"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 5]

Iraq not responding does not equal a “rejection” when we know that it was not the last time al-Qaeda members and affiliates were operating from inside Iraq.

“With al Qaeda at its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic Army that included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all [terrorist] groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 3]

Meaning at least one terrorist group from Iraq (possibly more) allied themselves with al-Qaeda. The Commission NEVER disputes the fact that al-Qaeda and Iraq had connections, the commission does however say that, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." In other words, we struck before Saddam and Bin Laden cooperated in murdering Americans.

The Commission never disputes the FACT that in 1998 (Before Bush ever came into office) the Justice Department under the Clinton administration issued an indictment for UBL and cited a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The indictment by the Grand Jury also said “...al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq,”

Proof that the U.S. government was already looking at the connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda before George W. Bush ever took office as President of the United States. Look at Clinton quotes at bottom. Also, six senior Clinton administration national security officials are on the record citing an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection.

My last comment on your dreamland, cuz I'm tired:

This directly from the 9/11 report, and I quote:

"These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a sourse of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States. Clinto administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim"

Whew. Neo-con de-bunking is exhausting.

Night all!

for all of this talk let me state the following facts:
I support president bush
i saw farenheit 911
it was interesting
I read mr. moore's most recent book
i did heavy research on both from primary sources
it is full of distortions and half truths and misleading editing as well as out and out lies
that is disapointing
go ahead flame me, i know what i know

Again, stop ignoring facts I have presented to you: why has the administration, even after the 9/11 commission said there was no link between Al Queda and Saddam, continue to say there is a link?

SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON IRAQI TIES TO TERRORISM:

• The CIA's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might deploy terrorists with a global read - [including] al Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable.

• The CIA's assessment on safehaven - that al Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control - was reasonable.

• The CIA's examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question.

• The CIA reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

• The CIA's assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Pakistani terrorist groups and with the Mujahidin e-Khaliq, was supported by the intelligence. The CIA was also reasonable in judging that Iraq appeared to have been reaching out to more effective terrorist groups, such as Hizballah and Hamas, and might have intended to employ such surrogates in the event of war.

ALSO: Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton said, "There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants."

www.johnkerryoniraq.com

everyone should watch this video just once. It is serious. It is actualy clips of john kerry over a period of ten years. I want to see what people make of it after they see it.

the real player worked on my computer for it.

My last comment on your dreamland, cuz I'm tired:

This directly from the 9/11 report, and I quote:

"These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a sourse of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States. Clinto administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim"


1) President clinton is on record citing the claim: "Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." The clinton and the commission claim clinton "misspoke."

2) Mansoor Ijaz, the Pakistani business man who brokered the deal still sticks to the claim.

3) Pollster Dick Morris, who helped clinton get elected into office twice, still sticks to the claim.

4) The government of Sudan still sticks to the claim.

After continually exposing leftists to their own ignorance and guilability (when they choose to believe something), I think I'll call it quits tonight. Goodnight!

Except most of what Kopel calls "deceits" are really just differences in interpretation. Moore's film doesn't have deceits in it--it has an opinion, and a very strong one at that. Moore has a particular way of looking at the available facts and he creates a very coherent and powerful narrative. There are other narratives that can be built using the same facts--they're not as powerful in my opinion, but they are plausible.

The reason that Moore's narrative was so powerful to me was that I didn't learn much of anything I didn't already know--the one detail I didn't know was that Karzai had ties to Unocal. Everything else was old news. The thing that was most powerful was the way the deceits of Bush and his administration were lined up side by side in one long narrative. It wasn't the individual details--it was the more powerful sum of those parts.
I couldn't agree more Incertonia!! It most assuredly was a "very coherent and powerful narrative."

The facts speak for themselves.

You know, even if you disagree with Moore's interpretations and even if you believe he lies (which he doesn't), if you get nothing else from the movie, the seven minutes Bush sat there after he was informed of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center says all you need to know about Bush to help you decide whether or not this man should be the leader of the free world.
That definitely was the most quintessential point in the narrative. Of course the musings of Moore as to what was going through Dubya's brain offered a little comic relief. :rolleyes:

It amused and horrified me at the same time.

They say he didn't want to frighten the kids. Hey! That's great! keep the kids calm in one class while thousands of Americans are dying!

He could have done many things. He didn't need to "panick" and leave the room. He should have gotten up, excused himself, and at least took a few minutes to make sure America was responding quickly and properly (neither of which actually happenned). Thank God the attack was not on a larger scale. It took us forever to respond.

The funny thing is, that while Moores critics attack his movies with aggressive zeal, they never touch his books.
His last book, "Dude, Wheres My Country?" mentions nearly everything that Fareinheit 9/11 does.

No one attacks that book.

Why?

Maybe its becuase at the end of the book, there are 27 pages of sources to back up Moore's statements.
All of them are taken from non partisan group polls, and even very partisan sources like Fox News, and the Washington Post.
Everything in that book can be fact checked.

Moore states the truth, and lets you make up your own mind about what you
read.

Neo Cons dont want you to know the truth.

Mind you, Moore has an agenda, and very strong opinions, wich he shares.
The difference is....Moore tells you upfront that his opinions are jaded.

I couldn't agree more Incertonia!! It most assuredly was a "very coherent and powerful narrative."

The facts speak for themselves.
You don't get it. These two statements are contradictory. A narrative is not the facts speaking for themselves. It is an arrangement of the facts to convey a certain plausible perspective, but only one perspective out of a possible many. Moore's narrative is particularily intolerant of existing contrary evidence, so he simply doesn't seek it out or include it.

The closest to the facts speaking for themselves would be simply viewing all available footage concerning Iraq, unedited, uncut, unnarrated, with no music cues.

No they haven't. Moore draws "opinions" based on half facts and is good at misleading without having to utter a false world. Did you read my post about Condoleeza Rice? The guy who runs Bowlingfortruth.com is not a right-winger. He adds sharp criticisms of certain Bush policies, namely the USA PATRIOT ACT. You should read the content of the arguements on the site before you falsely assume that disliking Moore means being a right-winger.

SOURCE: http://bowlingfortruth.com/moore/online/patriotact.htm

You lefties can take your "diversity" and shove it! I see antibush sentiments everyday.
Ummm that web site is NOT a sharp criticism of the USA PATRIOT ACT. Read it again and you will notice that he supports it.

It is just a rant against Michael Moore. Period. :rolleyes:

You don't get it. These two statements are contradictory. A narrative is not the facts speaking for themselves. It is an arrangement of the facts to convey a certain plausible perspective, but only one perspective out of a possible many. Moore's narrative is particularily intolerant of existing contrary evidence, so he simply doesn't seek it out or include it.

The closest to the facts speaking for themselves would be simply viewing all available footage concerning Iraq, unedited, uncut, unnarrated, with no music cues.
Perhaps you "don't get it", because you didn't see the movie, or you would know where I was coming from. The facts remain just that...FACTS. No one can dispute the facts presented, at least the taped ones.

You can try and twist this a thousand ways, and it won't matter. Get informed, go see the movie, then report back on your findings.

3) Pollster Dick Morris, who helped clinton get elected into office twice, still sticks to the claim.
Dick Morris still sticks to the claim that Hillary Clinton is going to have John Kerry shot before the general election so she can ride in on a white horse and save the party. Morris has even less credibility than Rush Limbaugh--and that's tough to do.

Here is the most comprehensive site: Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)
I haven't seen the movie because I refuse to support it with my money. After contemplating paying for another movie and sneaking in, I decided instead to simply read the transcript (http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088491633&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&) a couple times.

So in effect you're saying that as a conservative, you're going to rely only on what other ppl are going to tell you to form your opinions? You refuse to listen/watch what ppl with a different polictical leaning has to say, simply cause someone tells you it's wrong? You're also going to rely on them to tell you that they are comphrehensive - how the hell do you know w/o seeing the film they trashing? Are you also going to rely on the same ppl to tell you exactly what you should read/listen/watch?

If this is how Conservative Americans form their opinions and vote accordingly, then I'm a very frightened individual.

I suggest you read '1984' by George Orwell. It's the most comphrehensive book you'll ever read. Trust me. I wouldn't lie to you. In fact don't even read it, just take my word for it that it's a great book that changed your life and views.
Only kidding about the last bit, but pls do read the book.

Ok, I'v heard a lot of conservatives who have been blasting Michael Moore and his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, saying it's all lies, propaganda, ect. So I have a question - have any of you actually SEEN it? And if so, are there any facts that you can actually dispute, and back it up with your own facts?
I'm not looking for opinions here.
As soon as you read 'Unfit for Command' I'll discuss this with you.