Did Anyone Else NOT like Fahrenheit 9/11?

[ImThatOneGuy]

I know this sounds blasphemous but I really had high expectations for Michael Moore's lastest documentary. In fact, I tremendously enjoyed the first third of the movie. I have an even GREATER respect for Al Gore now and how George Bush stole the election from him.

But for the remainder of the film, I was gradually turned off by Moore's style and his knack for extrapolating conclusions due to guilt by association. But I believe that a lot of these personal attacks on Bush to be simply unfair and malicious. Most especially reprehensible was the scene in the elementary school classroom. I mean how dare Moore second-guess Bush and try to imply that Bush was somehow callous and apathetic to the devastating news that terrorists had attacked the World Trade Center. Anyone could clearly see that he was visibly shaken and disturbed by the news, just like other human being. He should NOT be unfairly attacked for sitting there in shock. Anyone of us would have done the same thing.

What was more ludicrous and simply disingenuous was Moore's completely slanted portrayal of the war in Iraq. He only interviewed Army soldiers and Marines who only had harsh things to say about the Iraqis and called for them to "die motherfuckers". Countless scense depicted soldiers breaking down doors and arresting villagers. Where were the pictures of our soldiers giving food to needy children or helping to build schools and helping Iraqi children get an education? Where were the interviews with the majority of our fine men and women over there who believe in their country and are fighting bravely?

His portrayal of smiling and laughing children playing in the streets of Baghdad before American bombs rained down gave the false impression that life under Saddam Hussein wasn't all that bad. Where were the pictures of Saddam's torture chambers? The pictures of those who suffered under his brutal regime? I know I know I sound like a Republican, but I am really disgusted by this incredible bias and spin.

To be clear, I am a committed liberal Democrat. I opposed this war. It was fought under FALSE pretenses and I disapprove of almost ALL of Bush's policies from his economic policy to his support of the federal gay marriange amendment. However, I am opposed to being emotionally manipulated in order to support a political agenda. I do not want to be used. I can make up my own mind through the FACTS. In the end, this movie was basically propaganda. And any type of propaganda, whether right-wing or left-wing, is reprehensible to any free-thinking individual.

[DaveSZ]

1. His shrillness turns me off sometimes

I guess I'm turned off by the entire demagogue culture.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tkmorris]

3. Nope

Not biting.

Oh well, ONE point. F9/11 was never supposed to be anything but a biased movie. Moore stated from the beginning that it was. Every single scene you object to as one-sided was designed to be. The movie was in part made to provide a counter-point to the propaganda being spewed by the so-called media. THEY claim they have no bias, though we know they do. Moore provided the other side of the coin and said flat out that was what he was doing.

You want balance? Good luck with that, I haven't seen any lately. Without people like Moore most of us would NEVER see the opposite view of the war.

[RodneyCK2]

15. I agree with this...

I think Moore's main purpose was to create a balance to all the right-wing slant we Democrats/liberals face daily. He called it an op-ed piece in his interviews and this is key.

I strongly agree that if you are looking for biased news piece, you might as well give up. There has been an deterioration in news reporting dating back to the 60's, maybe even earlier. This is why it is important for people to form their own opinions from the information presented, be smart. The only way to get REAL news is to become your own detective.

[kabalevski]

78. What about the Daily SHOW?

?.. jon ?

[stepnw1f]

134. BooHooHoo

[lottie244]

100. I do not agree with this!! Absolutely do not agree.

Michael Moore is presenting the otherside of the message. Why should just the RW be able to propagandize and exploit the ignorance of the masses? There needs to be an equal and opposite point of view...and yes even exxageration, innuendo, hubirs. We have rolled over and out done ourselves in being "civil" "honest" and "fair." To win against this evil you must fight them with what they understand. They did not hesitate to drop "the mother of all bombs" on Iraq..women and children based on lies, innuendo, fear. I will not support backing away from these lying, religious, evil zealots who mean nothing but harm to the world in order to garner the wealth of the world and control the peoples of the world. That's my story and I am sticking to it!!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

5. Moore never disguises his point of view

Art always has a perspective, even if you don't agree with it. The film is never held up to be a "fair and balanced" portrayal any more than most media nowadays are impartial in their reporting.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dover]

19. //

//

[Junkdrawer]

149. //

//

[kabalevski]

79. LOL..

con hiding undercover thing is a little paranoid..
but i wonder the same thing..

.. I mean.. SADDam is so evil. but.. really .. we only know what the media tells us.. what our govt wants us to know..


(not saying that he wasnt F#$kd up.. and needed to be.. REMOVED.. but.. still... )

wait.. this sounds.. kinda like. Conspiracy Theory..ish...

i think there are pictures of lots of Iraqies.. in Mass Graves.. but.. we don't actually know.. WHY.. they are there.. they could have all been.. TERRORISTS.. and.. HERE .. in america.. the president is now allowed to LOCK peopple up that he deams a threat.. for NO Reason.. no trial.. no.. contact ... nothing... (if i've read correctly.. maybe i'm wrong..?)..

[TexasSissy]

125. You hit the nail on the head. It's so obvious.

[TankLV]

133. bush* CHOKED! There is no excusing it.

In the moment that demanded leadership and quick, resolute thinking - he froze - panicked.

He has proved he's unfit for leadership - ESPECIALLY in time of "war" - a "war" he created!

John Kerry would never do that.

Come to think of it, not many other people, other than every stinking repuke chickenhawk, would either.

[jdj]

194. "any one of us"

Um, that's why I'm not the president.

He is. So, um, maybe he should have, um, done...SOMETHING...(???)

[shawmut]

7. I totally agree

...with the three posts above.


edit: make that 5. :D

[ImThatOneGuy]

14. WHOA

Who posted those three posts above that were deleted? I did not post those, I just posted my original message like 5 minutes ago. So yeah this is just my second post. And to be clear, I am not an undercover con...i can assure you that. I am completely committed towards regime change come November.

[leesa]

136. Then why are you regurgitating the RW talking points??

[Lerkfish]

191. I must admit that has me confused as well...

additionally, I don't think many liberals would call themselves "bleeding heart" liberals...that's just very odd...oh well.


I agree with some earlier posters that Moore has a POV, which is just as valid as the far right view. yet no one tries to silence the Oreillys, the coulters, the limbaughs. For some reason you're allowed to be extreme, but only to the right.
The difference appears to be that Moore is somehow perceived as a giant threat by the right, and they expend a great deal of energy attacking him, his weight, and accusing him of distorting the truth, etc. You only attack what you fear, so since they fear him, and the gist of their arguments against him is calling him a "liar", IMHO, I think this makes transparent the truth of what he's saying. They NEED to characterize what he portrays as false...why? If its merely false, there would be no reason for the right to fear him, would there? But since they DO fear him, in a round about way highlights that what he says is true.



look around folks, the greatest distorter of the truth is the president select. If he can lie about WMDs...but I digress.


What I dearly love is how the right is collapsing under the weight of their own mendacity. What was the old saying " what a twisted web we weave, when first we practice to deceive..."

[cosmicvortex20]

201. Which is exactly why we cant attack ole rushbo the same way.

Calling rush fat, or stupid, or whatever just leads those "undecided" to conclude there was no logical argument against what he has to say. Never attack the messenger, only the issues.

Its for this exact reason we dont need to be percieved as "illogical" anyone but bush types. Address the issues and the rest falls into place.

[AVID]

8. Does anyone else LOVE fox news.

I mean, with all the liberal bias in the liberal media and the liberal whiners, fox is a breath of fair and balanced fresh air.

cough. . .bullshit . . cough

[bobbyboucher]

9. Oh gawd.

Thinly veiled. Congrats, you missed it entirely.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fearnobush]

11. I think you find this story below to be a high crime of Bush that

falls in line with Moore's assertions except this story is being shared as news, not Moore.

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626850>

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 7:18 p.m. ET Aug. 6, 2004

This is all BUSHIT, please, everyone send below story to the world.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The al-Qaida suspect named by U.S. officials as the source of information that led to this week’s terrorist alerts was working undercover, Pakistani intelligence sources said Friday, putting an end to the sting operation and forcing Pakistan to hide the man in a secret location.

Under pressure to justify the alerts in three Northeastern cities, U.S. officials confirmed a report by The New York Times that the man, Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, was the source of the intelligence that led to the decision.

A Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters on Friday that Khan, who was arrested in Lahore secretly last month, had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers.

[LSK]

16. I should be shocked and outraged

But by now, I EXPECT this traitorous behavior from this administration. Their intentions have NEVER been about protecting common americans. It was always about power, wealth and personal gain.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RodneyCK2]

18. Come on, this person just voiced his opinions...

and this is a FORUM. You can agree and/or disagree in a logical, intelligent manner, so lets keep the name calling out of the picture. This is a Repug trait. Someone who refuses to listen to the opposite side and just spews obscenities and reverts to name calling.

I think we are better than that.

[kabalevski]

92. Ok?..

.. So.. When people are getting deleted messages.. this means.. that they were NAME calling?.. being rude?.. or.. that someone didn't like their point of view?.. How come i keep seeing this deleted message deal?...

[RodneyCK2]

120. I assume the moderator is doing the deleting, don't know.

I am also assuming that the moderator is trying to keep the thread a civilized discussion and not some flame thread. Again, you would have to ask the moderator.

[SemperEadem]

150. because in some way, they broke the rules around here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

it's not too terribly hard to find out what is not tolerated here.

[TexasSissy]

126. I would normally agree. But the orig. post is SO obvious it isn't one of

us. Like in that movie The Body Snatchers. We are capable of detecting those who are not one of our own. As a moderate Dem. who sometimes voices opinions that go against the progressive grain, I am no stranger to being flamed. But my posts, though different sometimes, still clearly show that I'm not one of "them." There's just a different tone. A different goal. (The Gore part of the original message was thrown in for authenticity, IMO.)

[Rocinante]

13. I love it

I haven't been around to see one of these threads before they're deleted for a long time.

[ImThatOneGuy]

17. Um...what do you mean?

What kind of threads are you talking about?

To respond to the previous comments above, I do realize its almost impossible to get truly fair and balanced news. Everyone has a political agenda somewhere. So that is a valid point that some of you bring up. However, I feel Moore should attack a politician's policies, not the actual person. I know its all for comedy and entertainment, but still I have my reservations. That's all I'm saying folks.

[Rocinante]

23. Oh I don't know...

Did an edit eh? How clever, and such total bullshit.

[AVID]

24. Would you care to spend the amount of time

you obviously spent critiquing a filmmakers opinion piece reviewing the news medias coverage of the months leading p to the war? The embedded - in bedded - journalists with soldiers. I saw the movie, I know its strengths and flaws. If you are troubled by F911, you ought to be furious about fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC news. Please share your rant about the media!

[thebigidea]

25. are you saying Moore DIDN'T attack Bush's policies in that film?

and aren't most of the "attacks" on Bush just examples of him opening his mouth?

[LSK]

31. moore has a right to question our leaders

It is election time. And what do we do then? We evaluate our leaders and decide whether we want new ones or not.

Moore gives a damning argument of something I have thought for years. That republicans are more interested in making money from making their phoney wars. Go read the book Blank Check.

Its an obvious pattern by now. Create something for the public to fear. Say I will protect you. Then go spend tons upon tons of the publics money on phoney wars. Meanwhile your buddies defense contractor companies can charge stupidly insane amounts of money to build guns, planes, tanks, etc etc etc.

War = Profit. Plane and simple. That is the REAL republican motto.

[rman]

32. how about attacking a politicians conflic of interest?

Such as oil business, and close business ties to Saudi royalty?

Or would that be unfair because it's negative?

We hear positive things about this administration and their war all the time. F911 tells the other side of the story we'd never have heard if it wasn't for F911.

[leesa]

137. Wake up. Turn OFF your teevee.

[Cha]

163. bush's policy of sitting in the damn chair for 7 minutes lacked

intelligence which we have a right to expect in a so called leader..even if he was appointed by the supreme court ..5 to 4!!

bush's policies stink!

And Michael Moore's documentary doesn't have to be "fair and balanced"..he's leaving that to faux news!!

[thebigidea]

20. Yeah, I really hated how he showed the human side of war.

I was really revolted by images of Iraqis and Americans mangled, bloody, and missing limbs. I want a clean videogame representation of war, and when I go to see a movie about how Bush used 9/11 for his political purposes, I want to see hours of propaganda about how bad Saddam Hussein was instead.

[Darranar]

86. Yes, that horrid left-wing propagandandist!

How dare he actually state that the Iraq War was wrong and portray its brutality on screen! He should have instead shown us the beauty of butchering children in bombing raids, the benevolence of attacking residential centers, and the righteousness of snipers firing on children.

[TexasSissy]

128. And he's FAT, too! How could people go watch a movie made by a FAT

dude! It's downright un-American!

(I'm joking, of course. I'm just repeated something like the Repub posts I've seen.)

[HuskerDem]

21. Here's where you lost credibilty/believabilty............ in case you care

"how dare Moore second-guess Bush and try to imply that Bush was somehow callous and apathetic to the devastating news that terrorists had attacked the World Trade Center."

Apathy is a lack of care or action. Bush showed neither care nor action. He instead looked pukish and chewed on the inside of his face until someone told him what he was supposed to do.

How dare Moore?............. indeed HOW DARE BUSH? How can he claim to be some "grate (sp) and moral leader" when he is clearly ignorant, inept and incompetent? I wouldn't give him authority over a pet rock.

[Columbia]

22. No one dares speak of Moore like that!

Fall back in line, comrade!

[ImThatOneGuy]

26. Just a misunderstanding?

I dunno if this is just a misunderstanding folks, I sure didn't mean to offend anyone. But yeah here's what I posted above again for all those that missed it before

*SNIP* "To respond to the previous comments above, I do realize its almost impossible to get truly fair and balanced news. Everyone has a political agenda somewhere. So that is a valid point that some of you bring up. However, I feel Moore should attack a politician's policies, not the actual person. I know its all for comedy and entertainment, but still I have my reservations. That's all I'm saying folks."

And lastly for the record, I like Michael Moore. I loved Bowling for Columbine. Its just that I didn't particularly like Fahrenheit 9/11. Again that's all I'm saying.

[Bluebear]

30. Re: attacking politician's policies, not the actual person

Do you suggest that when Bush says he knows God speaks through him that is not fair game? That only policies should be discussed? When someone thinks a leader is devoid of personal values it is hard not to get personal about it, that's all I am saying.

[AmerDem]

104. your are "ThatOneGuy" here that is a Nazi repuke!

There will be NO NEW FASCIST Empire in the USA get that thru your head!

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

152. Chill!

Cool it, AmerDem...everyone's entitled to an opinion. Go take a chill pill and come back when you can discuss things in a civilized manner.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AVID]

28. the line falls out nov 3

until then - head voice - head voice - head voice. Or share on Freeperville.

Do the Repugs have a monopoly on solidarity?

[Dover]

27. I seriously doubt Bush would have just sat in that classroom if his family

were under attack, or in one of the Trade Towers or a passenger on one of the ill fated planes. Come on....tick, tick, tick,

[w13rd0]

58. No, now we know...

...that if it were his family that were under attack, he'd have them stand at the door to stop and shake the hands of the fleeing and insist that they sign a loyalty oath before leaving the crumbling tower. Now the Saudis, that's another matter entirely. Heck, would anyone here be surprised if Bush didn't have both the twins lined up for a Bandar Bush or two? "Go on now girls, it's part of Daddy's election strategy."

[slutticus]

29. Did the firefighters and policemen that died on 9/11 sit there in shock?

Did they sit around like idiots for 7 minutes while people died?... No they did not. THEY DID THEIR JOBS. Bush did not do his job that day. He sat their like a deer in headlights when he should have been a leader.


Bush is a fucking disgrace to our country and is rightfully portrayed as such in Moore's movie.

[ImThatOneGuy]

34. I guess it IS a misunderstanding

Wow, I think people sure got the wrong impression that I'm some sort of Bush apologist. I do not defend or justify any of Bush's policies. I hate his use of God and personal religion in order to further his political agenda. I hate his blatant attempt to pander to the fundamentalist right. And I LOATHE his politicization of the War on Terror in order to secure his re-election.

However, the original intent of my first post was to express why I did not like Fahrenheit 9/11. It was by no means an apology or a justification for the wayward policies of the Bush Administration. It was just my OWN movie review guys! I was just wondering if anyone else shared my opinion or had any other thoughts to add. That's all. No more, no less.

[thebigidea]

36. how is it possible to misunderstand "how dare Moore second-guess Bush "

I'd think by now, the right to second-guess a dipshit like Bush would be extended to everyone from James Lipton to earthworms, mildew, and peat moss.

[Bridget Burke]

41. No, there's no misunderstanding here.

Anybody who can defend Bush's inaction in that Florida classroom is a Bush apologist. At the very least he revealed himself as totally incompetent. Or, as many believe, he was just allowing the scheme to unfold. He'd heard the warnings about impending terrorist attacks, but he & his people thought they could use the result to their advantage. And they did.

And how can you use the phrase "fair and balanced" with a straight face?

[slutticus]

44. I was just disagreeing with one statement that you made.

"He should NOT be unfairly attacked for sitting there in shock. Anyone of us would have done the same thing."

Bush is a man that calls himself "A War President" and pretends like he's some kind of bad-ass hero who fears no evil. Basically, he talks the talk but....well.....he's worthless. I was simply disagreeing with your opinion that Moore unfairly attacked Bush.

Bush should not have been in shock. When I turned on my TV that tuesday morning on 9/11, I threw my remote control (it's still broken to this day) and I screamed at the top of my lungs. I immediately called every person in my cell phonebook to try to find out what the hell was going on. I did not sit there with a terrified look on my face. I reacted like any NORMAL person would have...I immeadiatly wanted to find out as much as possible about what was going on. Bush simply didn't know what to do because he is an incompetent leader and he is in way over his head. Moore has every right to portray Bush as the incompetent fool he is.

I don't think you are a bush apologist.....just on this one issue.

[Cheswick2.0]

82. people are disagreeing with you

That's what happens when you post here. People agree or they disagree.

[Cheswick2.0]

81. Any one of those fire fighters would be a better President

Any one of them would be a better President than that election thief in office.

I wouldn't have sat there in shock for 7 minutes and then spent another 20 minutes in the school trying to contact Cheney for advice on what to do.

[Cha]

185. Good Point! And I imagine that the Firefighters and Policemen

who saw F9/11 were equally dismayed at * inaction. Maybe that's why they have endorsed Kerry/Edwards?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ImThatOneGuy]

35. There's a smell test?

How am I not sincere? Just curious. I'm trying not to be confrontational with any of you folks here.

[Bluebear]

37. Well, a 17 year old that says "folks" and "bleeding heart liberal" for one

Doesn't quite sound authentic, but who am I to judge.

[ImThatOneGuy]

38. Well almost 18!

I guess I don't speak like the average everyday run of the mill 17 year old. I didn't know that was a crime. Oh well.

[Bluebear]

39. I didn't say it was a crime.

You asked what a smell test is. So, what are your reasons for regime change? Which issues are dear to you?

[w13rd0]

59. What does the average everyday run of the mill 17...

...year old speak like?

[Cat Atomic]

129. You're 17? Do you watch Fox News?

I think what people are getting at is that your speech is laced with conservative lingo and talking points.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RodneyCK2]

43. Who said he wanted to fight? Whatever happened to an..

intellectual debate? This is the problem with this forum. Sure, we all get along if we speak the same thought, but heaven forbid if someone had a differing view or opinion on something. This guy has been called names and worst, a Repug on this thread, just for stating what he thought about F/911.

What would happen if a real Repug or a so-called "Swing Voter" decided to post here hoping to debate? Would we just treat them in the same manner as many of the derogatory posts above? If so, you might as well kiss-off any chances of changing their minds. I know another group who behaves in this manner, Repugs. Are we any better?

[VolcanoJen]

42. Everyone... any chance we can have this conversation...

... without resorting to personal attacks?

The poster is new, and has defended his ideals throughout this thread. It's an important discussion to have, and I think ImThatOneGuy is worthy of the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how popular F911 is in our community.

FWIW, ImThatOneGuy, I enjoyed the film, and Moore's point of view. It's easy to see how people could take Moore's view as an attack on the president's character, and it's not that much of a stretch to see how the harshness of the film could turn people away from its message. However, I don't personally feel that it is the responsibility of Michael Moore to be show every side of the Iraq/Post 9/11 debate. As a filmmaker, he presented his view, and we are free to critique that. I certainly don't love every film I see, but the ones I love the most are the ones that stir my blood, make me angry, joyful, depressed, searching, hopeful, hopeless, emotional. It's really a matter of personal taste, but that's the kind of emotion I experienced during F911, and that's why it's a film I'll never forget.

At any rate, I think it's unfair, and a little bit beyond the point, to criticize filmmakers for the parts they leave out.

Art is often controversial and divisive, but always worthy of debate and conversation.

[RodneyCK2]

46. Well said. Thanks you.

[ImThatOneGuy]

49. I appreciate it

WOW...I TOTALLY did not expect this kind of response to my original post. I was just gonna post and then go to bed. Good thing I didn't, I really got this tremendous feedback. I understand I may have stepped on some toes with my opinion and for that I apologize. While I respectfully disagree with some of the posts in here, I value their opinions nonetheless. In addition, I appreciate people like VolcanoJen a lot. Thanks for your understanding!

Um...in response to a request that I lay out my reasons for regime change, here it is in a nutshell once again.

1. Bush has certainly proven he is not a uniter, but a divider. He has taken America farther to the right than any President before him.

2. His dangerous and reckless current doctrine of preeemption. It is a catalyst for instability and more bloodshed.

3. His duplicity in citing the original justifications for going to war in Iraq. Someone has to restore the credibility in the White House and only a new President (aka John Kerry!) can do that

4. His complete disregard of the international community. I need only cite the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocols, and his policy of developing new nuclear weapons for all of us to get the picture.

So there you go...my reasons why I'm supporting Kerry-Edwards for regime change in November.

P.S. And btw...I am a 17 year old! I know that I don't sound like it in my posts. My name is Will and im gonna be a freshman at the University of California, Santa Barbara this September.

[VolcanoJen]

52. Welcome to DU, ImThatOneGuy.

And, best of luck at UCSB in the fall!

Join the Campus Dems when you get there, would ya?

:toast:

[Bluebear]

54. Indeed, good luck at school.

You've an impressive vocabulary and will go far. Regards to Portola Hills.

[RodneyCK2]

56. Don't ever be afraid to state your opinion...

despite some of the things said here. Debating issues is a time honored tradition and it only makes one smarter for it in the end.

I wish you luck as well in School and I hope to see you around DU.

[rman]

68. all in all plenty of reason to second guess Bush, wouldn't you say?

-

[smirkymonkey]

112. Ok, I am willing to cut you some slack due to your

age, however you should be aware that it is not wise to post something that could be interpreted as a defense of Chimpy so soon out of the gate. Build some credibility first.

[RodneyCK2]

114. This is perhaps the dumbest excuse I have read.

In response I would have to say, look up the word "Forum", which, by the way, is the thing you are posting on.

A forum is not just a one-sided view, everyone agrees. A forum is a place to exchange ideas and DEBATE. And, most certainly, one does not need to establish himself in some sort of hierarchal circle before voicing his or her opinion, just preposterous. I would like to see that stated in the rules. I must have missed it.

[smirkymonkey]

141. Ok, Einstien, here you go....

From the DU rules:

"We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

In case you haven't noticed, there are plenty of trolls on this board and they get tombstoned all the time.

[RodneyCK2]

146. None of which this poster stated...

his disagreement is with Michael Moore's op-ed piece, his art, not George Bush. In fact, if you actually took the time to read his complete post, at the end he states..

"To be clear, I am a committed liberal Democrat. I opposed this war. It was fought under FALSE pretenses and I disapprove of almost ALL of Bush's policies from his economic policy to his support of the federal gay marriange amendment. However, I am opposed to being emotionally manipulated in order to support a political agenda. I do not want to be used. I can make up my own mind through the FACTS. In the end, this movie was basically propaganda. And any type of propaganda, whether right-wing or left-wing, is reprehensible to any free-thinking individual."

Clearly, he is following the rules of the forum, just stating a difference of opinion on Moore. I understand their are plenty of trolls on the board, but take the time to decipher if it is just an uninformed poster or someone causing problems. He has clearly shown by all his additional posts that he is searching for answers, debating. Return the favor, Einstien.

[smirkymonkey]

174. The paragraph you stated is the typical

freeper troll disclaimer. Do you take everyone at their word? Stick around for a while. You might learn something.

Exhibit #1:
"I mean how dare Moore second-guess Bush and try to imply that Bush was somehow callous and apathetic to the devastating news that terrorists had attacked the World Trade Center. Anyone could clearly see that he was visibly shaken and disturbed by the news, just like other human being. He should NOT be unfairly attacked for sitting there in shock. Anyone of us would have done the same thing.

The boldfaced type is the big tip-off. And why are you so defensive? Hmmmmmmmmmm........

[RodneyCK2]

179. Again, more name calling... typical.

You are your own worst enemy. He is still talking about Moore's portrayal of Bush in the "bold" words you point out. Look Mr Paranoid, try reading it slowly and out loud. For your sake, it is to bad he did not draw any pictures.

Look, I am not siding with his view. There are things I wish Moore had done differently, but I digress. The point is, he is trying to defend his point of view (we each have one, you know). Who knows where anyone really stands on this forum. We can only assume, ASSUME, that the general consensus is the same. Sometimes, yes sometimes, issues can be looked at from different angles and not everyone will agree. It doesn't make them/him a "freeper" or any other nasty, forked-tongue comment you spew.

Oh, and to answer your question, why am I so defensive, hmmmmm... is to imply I am a freeper or whatever you call it. Yes, we are all actual freepers in sheep's clothing, ready and waiting to attack YOU. Is it time for your meds yet?

[Kanary]

95. Nope, it's probably not possible.

There are many things, and many areas, where most of us learn quickly not to express what we really think or feel here, if we don't want to be flamed.

There's an approved line to follow.

Kanary

[RodneyCK2]

118. This is false. Then why is this not stated in the rules of the forum?

Again, as I pointed out above, this is a FORUM you are posting on so I suggest you look the meaning up in the dictionary. There are no hidden cultural codes to follow in regards to not voicing your opinion or crossing lines, unless stated in the rules section of the Forum.

On the topic of "Flamed", isn't that just some uneducated word for "I don't agree with you, so I think I will attack?" Try being an intellect and debate with out resorting to "Flaming."

[Kanary]

144. Ah, yes...... so I'm "uneducated"

Thanks for proving my point.

[smirkymonkey]

176. Careful, your insecurity is showing.

[Xipe Totec]

204. Well, I wasn't happy with F911 Either.

And not because Moore attacked Dubya's behavior during 9/11, but because he didn't do it more effectively. I thought there was a lot more material out there that he could have used to 'chain chimp boy to da wall'.

Some of Moore's material was effective and very good; the stunned bunny scene in the school room, the 'watch this swing' line, the 'I call you my base' line delivered to a bunch of tuxedoed oligarchs. But it wasn't uniformly good throughout. I caught myself looking at my watch a couple of times.

[ronabop]

45. What?

"How dare Moore second guess...."?

This is not just some guy. This is the President Of The United States. Under nuclear attack, he had roughly 17 minutes to respond. Sitting for seven minutes to hear a goat story is treason in my book. Michael Moore would have been stunned, too. That's why we don't elect men like him to the office.

"Anyone of us would have done the same thing."

Total Bullshit.

Some of us have been trained to respond to an attack. Others of us have never been in a life or death attack, because we had a cushy gig our entire lives. Would it be OK with you if you were shot, and an ambulance driver sat for seven minutes because he was shocked? If a firefighter stood in front of your house, in flames, for seven minutes because he was shocked?

"Where were the pictures of our soldiers giving food to needy children or helping to build schools and helping Iraqi children get an education?"

On Faux news. We paint schools, but they have no teachers. We give food, but their economy is totally screwed, so they can't afford to work and buy food. Keeping poor people poor and freshly painted schools empty isn't something to be proud of.

"His portrayal of smiling and laughing children playing in the streets of Baghdad before American bombs rained down gave the false impression that life under Saddam Hussein wasn't all that bad."

Were women allowed on the streets without fear of rape? Could children play on the streets?

Do you have any clue on how incredibly bad it is over there right now?

-Bop
edit: typo

[wellstone_democrat]

140. Uh, how 'bout that fighter pilot training?????

That *might* indicate that he *should* be ready and able to respond in an emergency situation. But, then again, he was grounded for unknown reasons. Maybe that physical, maybe that hides something else.

I know this: I've been trained in the Air Force to be a first responder in a crisis. When there is one I don't sit in a pool of pee with a blank look and hope something comes to mind. This man had to (presumably, the others do) be screened for his response ---"flee or fight"---before that expensive training as a fighter pilot. Not a cargo pilot, a fighter pilot.

There is no excuse. No explanation and no excuse.

As to the other silly "gee they didn't show BOTH sides" type of complaint about Democrats...I can hear that on TV everytime WE make a valid point.

[Zen Democrat]

47. tap, tap, Earth to ThatOneGuy ....

Michael Moore wasn't filming a history lesson. He was showing us all the things the mainstream media hasn't shown us.

The 2000 election fiasco was eye-opening. The Inaugural Parade was incredible -- the shock to see what the media has been hiding all along.

Bush staying in the 2nd Grade on 9/11: Deer in the headlights doesn't even touch what that portrayed -- a freaked-out man with no idea of what to do, where to go, what to say, -- so he just picks up a storybook and zones out. If that didn't scare the crap of you, I don't know what would.

Iraq? We've seen the soldiers playing with the children and opening schools and treating Iraqis at the hospitals. Michael Moore showed us another side of the story. The part the government doesn't want you to see. Soldiers speaking out in criticism of what's going on.

A Peace group infiltrated by the local Sheriff's office. The man questioned by the FBI for expressing his opinion at the gym.

I could go on -- but the point is this, You obviously don't want the WHOLE truth. YOu already knew all the things you mentioned as missing from the movie. Michael Moore is filling in some empty spaces. He didn't intend for it to be "fair" -- he intended to illuminate some dark corners. And I and millions of others applaud and salute him for his willingness to take the heat and make a stand for freedom of speech.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. I think if you watch the movie

it's glaringly apparent that Michael Moore loves this country, and has a great deal more respect for the men and women who are in Uniform and serving this nation than the Bush Administration does. I also think that the only person who "unfairly" depicts George Bush is George Bush himself. Moore didn't doctor the footage of Bush kowtowing to his Saudi pals or shmoozing his "haves.. and have mores" Base, nor did he do anything other than present the inescapable cinematic evidence that shows George W. Bush sitting like a stunned rabbit for seven minutes after being told, quote, "the country is under attack".. Now, what you or I would do is irrelevant, presuming we are civilians and not the commander in chief of the nation. His responsibility as President is to be decisive and together enough to say "sorry, kids, I got some presidentin' to do"

I thought it was an excellent film, and presented a deep sympathy for the fighting forces of our country- staffed, as always, by the lower economic folks who are always the first ones to fight, and die.. and who are always the ones to get the shaft from the Republican Party and it's so-called "patriots".

Perhaps you should go see it again.

[bhunt70]

50. I l iked the first half much better than the second half.

I liked the "meat" of the first half much better than the second half of the movie. I don't want to use the word propoganda to describe it, but I think Moores intent at the second part of the movie was to pull your heart strings more than it was to make your head work, which I think the first part was more about.

I won't lie, I was pretty upset at the end of the movie. He was successful at showing what a truly fucked up situation we are in now, all the way down to the personal level.

For what it's worth though, I'll take the first part over the second. I don't mind Moore using Bush's words against him, because if you say them then you should be accountable for it.

[IkeWarnedUs]

51. My answer to your questions

With a low post count and some of your comments, I'm sure many DU'ers will dismiss you as a freeper - it already started. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are really looking for dialog and not throwing s**t at a fan.

If I made Fahrenheit 911 it would have been a little different. For example, I would definately discussed the Project for the New American Century and featured some of the more outspoken members of the 911 family groups. But I didn't make the movie. I do what I can to spread the truth I know, but I didn't do the work to make this movie and Michael Moore did. So he is entitled to make the movie the way he sees fit.

I wonder if you saw Bill Maher's new show on HBO last week. One of his guests was Michael Moore. They talked a lot about the 7 minutes in the school as they did on the show again tonight. Pretty much every guest is asked how they would react if President and told the country is under attack. I find it interesting that all of his Republican guests say they would take a few minutes to collect their thoughts and try to decide what course of action to take before leaving the classroom while everyone else (including a former Canadian Prime Minister, obviously not a partisan Democrat) said they would excuse themselves right away.

I was getting into my car that morning when I heard about the first plane and I immediately pulled back into the driveway to get to a TV and find out what was going on. I was glued to the TV for days.

President Bush knew about the first plane before he went into that classroom. I would hope our leader would already have been thinking about the impact on our nation of an airplane flying into the World Trade Center - whether by accident or on purpose - even before getting word about the second plane. Hearing about a second plane should not have caused such paralysis. The shock should have come with the news of the first plane.

It's easy for some people to dismiss his inaction at the news because it is "only 7 minutes". That is actually a fairly long time. I'd like to ask you to try something. Take a kitchen timer or alarm clock and set it to go off in 7 minutes. Then sit there and wait for the alarm to go off. Don't touch the keyboard. Don't watch TV. Just sit. Better still, drink a lot of water before you do this and wait until your bladder is full and then try it. That way you will feel some sense of urgency as you sit and wait. Notice all the thoughts that run through your head as you sit there. You'll see 7 minutes is longer than it sounds.

You ask where the positive images and interviews are about our soldiers in Iraq. They are all over the CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the evening news. What we don't see are the stories Michael Moore showed. That's the beauty of this movie. It is an end run around the corporate owned media that gives us "news" that is sanitized for our protection. We are being force fed the images you describe. There is more to the story than what you see on TV and in the newspapers and that is what Fahrenheit 911 tries to show people.

I wonder, are you also disgusted by the incredible bias and spin of the media?

Michael Moore is very open about his bias and never claimed his movie to be journalism. Which is more than I can say for any of the "news" sources we have today.

Most people I talk to who saw Fahrenheit 911 say they are amazed there is so much in the movie they never heard about. Many of these are people who felt they were pretty well informed. They read the paper, watch the evening news, maybe catch a Sunday morning show or two. Chances are, you fall in that category too. I hope that, if you really do come to DU for information and discussion of Democratic issues, you will see how much more there is than what we get in the American media. Then maybe you will appreciate Michael Moore's movie for what it is - an attempt to give people a fuller picture of events by showing facts that are not being shown anywhere else in the US.

The word propaganda has negative connotations, but it actually means any dissemination or promotion of a particular idea or doctrine to further one's cause. I consider myself to be a free thinking individual and I am not offended by propaganda as long as it is labled as such and not passed off as journalism.

[slutticus]

53. I was EXTREMELY dissapointed...

...that PNAC was not even mentioned in the movie.

I was actually quite shocked that it wasn't...

[IkeWarnedUs]

69. I got my copy of Outfoxed in the mail today

At the beginning of the DVD is a trailer for another documentary called "Uncovered - The War on Iraq" by Robert Greenwald. It shows Chas Freeman (Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Ambassador to Saudi Arabia), Joseph Wilson, David Kay (Iraq weapons inspector), John Dean (Nixon White House), Larry Johnson, Milt Bearden, Robert Baer, Mel Goodman, Ray McGovern, (all former CIA) talking about the bogus info that lead us to war AND The Project for the New American Century!

The trailer says it is coming soon to a theater near you.

Here is the link to the movie's website: http://www.truthuncovered.com/

And list of theaters (from the website):

August 20
New York City
Angelika Film Center – City Cinemas
Sutton Theatre– City Cinemas
Boston
Kendall Square – Landmark
Washington DC
E Street Cinema – Landmark

AUGUST 27
Los Angeles
Fine Arts – Landmark
Encino – Laemmle
Pasadena - Rialto – Landmark
Irvine UTC - Regal
San Francisco
Lumiere – Landmark
Albany (Berkeley) – Landmark
San Diego/La Jolla
Ken Theatre – Landmark
Seattle
Egyptian Theatre - Landmark
Chicago
Century Theatre – Landmark

SEPTEMBER 10
Portland
Fox Tower – Regal
Denver
Starz Film Ctr
Boulder
Crossroads – Landmark
Miami
South Beach 18 – Regal
Minneapolis
Lagoon – Landmark
St. Louis
Tivoli – Landmark

SEPTEMBER 24
Milwaukee
Oriental – Landmark
OCTOBER 8
New Orleans
Canal Place – Landmark

[PassingFair]

182. That makes two of us, Slutti...

I was also disappointed that there was no coverage of the global antiwar demonstrations...

[ImThatOneGuy]

55. Um...

I'm not saying that Michael Moore is not a patriot or that he doesn't have an obligation to show us how the war is over there. I'm just saying that he took some pretty cheap shots that wouldn't be fair to any person. And I ALSO realize that this movie is his work of art and open to HIS interpretation. That is completely his right, as well it should be. But on the flip-side, I am also entitled to NOT liking his art.

[IkeWarnedUs]

60. Absolutely

When I started writing my reply there were two responses to your post. When I posted my message there were 50, including a few from you.

I do respect your opinion of the movie and as I said, it wasn't exactly the movie I would have made. But I am so $^%@!!#'ing thrilled that so much of what I have been trying to tell people is now available in an amusing 2 hour format. It's got people talking and asking questions and for that I am grateful.

[VolcanoJen]

70. That's the most effective aspect of the film, from our point of view.

Exactly right, IkeWarnedUs. DUers and political junkies everywhere have been wrapped up in these issues for years now, and Michael Moore did us a favor by presenting most of our concerns in a digestible package which demands discussion and debate.

It's such an electric time, for lack of a better word.

[TorchTheWitch]

57. good grief

I mean how dare Moore second-guess Bush and try to imply that Bush was somehow callous and apathetic to the devastating news that terrorists had attacked the World Trade Center. Anyone could clearly see that he was visibly shaken and disturbed by the news, just like other human being. He should NOT be unfairly attacked for sitting there in shock. Anyone of us would have done the same thing.

Ya know, this is something that just bugs the crap out of me. The idiot sat there like a turd for at least 7 minutes and you DARE to imply... no, you come right out and say it... that the rest of us would do the same thing???

BULLSHIT! When I heard the tragic news, I was in my office. I continued to answer my phone, fuss with paperwork and deal with clients all the while knowing that people I had known and worked with for years may at that moment be leaping from the remains of the World Trade Center towers in flames... while knowing that my brother and my uncle at the Pentagon may have been vaporized... while knowing that my best friend in NY may be under the rubble since he normally would have been in the immediate vicinity at the time.

I got my ass out of my chair, discussed with coworkers the likelihood that we weren't going to be able to conduct much business that day and evaluated the pros and cons of closing up and sending everybody home. I closed and locked up the office, got my car out of the parking garage, drove myself home... and guess what? So did a shitload of other people. What I did NOT do, and neither did anyone in my office, or out on the street do, was sit on our collective butts in shock unable to function... and none of us RUN THE FUCKING COUNTRY AS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF!

I have yet to speak to or encounter ONE... count 'em, ONE... single individual that upon hearing of the tragedy was stunned into paralysis for ANY amount of time much less at least 7 minutes. Yes, people were shocked - yes, people were reduced to tears - yes, people were horrified, outraged, appalled, frightened... But, NONE of us were fucking PARALYZED into unfunctionability... and I'd be willing to bet that you weren't either. Contrary to your apparent belief with this "Anyone of us would have done the same thing" fecal matter, everyone in the country did not come to a screeching insensible halt and remain incapacitated for at least 7 minutes upon hearing the news, and we're all just a bunch of lowly work-a-day peasants, not the FUCKING COMMANDER IN CHIEF!

On edit: there, their, they're... so many to chose from.

[Bluebear]

61. You brought back that day so clearly....

You know what else I don't get?

>Before going to sleep around 11:30 p.m., Bush wrote in his diary, "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.... We think it's Osama bin Laden." <..........

Who went to bed at 11:30pm on September 11??? I don't think I slept three hours the first two days. Glued to the TV, numb, curious, furious... that he could go beddy-bye that early is fantastic to me.

[thebigidea]

63. and we're to believe a guy who doesn't even read keeps a diary?

[TorchTheWitch]

75. good point

Who went to bed at 11:30pm on September 11??? I don't think I slept three hours the first two days. Glued to the TV, numb, curious, furious... that he could go beddy-bye that early is fantastic to me.

I don't know a soul who wasn't physically effected. I gave up on getting any sleep that night and took the dog out at about 3:00 a.m., and all up and down the street the lights were on in every home... the glow of tv's at 3:00 a.m. all over the neighborhood. Got no sleep that night and only a few hours the next. Called out sick on 9/12 along with almost everyone else I worked with. Never watched so much tv in my life. The Commander in Chief going to bed at ALL that night is just plain sinister.

[VolcanoJen]

67. See, that's what I mean by *emotion*

Kickass post, TorchTheWitch.

Although I'd already seen the "My Pet Goat" video (DU remains, like, a year ahead of the mainstream, to which Moore holds a green card), seeing it on an enormous screen; surrounded in sound, and a packed house... well, it elicited emotion much like what TorchTheWitch expressed.

I'll never forget this film, our discussions, the crowds, the two different cities I viewed it in, the media dialogue, the hype, the craze, the emotion.

I almost don't want to let the ripeness of it fall away, honestly.

[the_outsider]

62. If you were against the invasion, I don't see how you could dislike F9/11

I will assume you are sincerely asking and will try to address your points.

"Anyone of us would have done the same thing."

I wouldn't have. Kerry has said he wouldn't have. Bush had to take charge immediately. Also I did not see any shock or concern for citizens in his face after he heard the news. He just looked clueless. Personally I did not like Moore's voice-over in that scene. Just Bush sitting there and reading would have been more damning. But it's a stylistic comment, I have no problems about what he discusses in the voice-over. Those are relevant to 9-11 and set up the next segments.

I thought the "burn motherfucker, burn" section climaxing in the inter cutting of the mangled baby and Rumsfeld's speech on "humanity in precision bombing" was very strong and effective. Every decent American had to cringe. This is one face of USA that the rest of the world is familiar with and Americans are not because we have this great independent liberal media. When USA declares an unprovoked illegal invasion against another sovereign country, the resulting destruction must be seen by every American citizen who is indirectly participating in it. Mainstream media did not show it, this film did. That's a whole lot more important than omitting "reconstruction after destruction" footage or GIs being nice to some Iraqi children after killing their parents. We get enough sweet nothings about war for freedom and democracy in mainstream media. This film was not about it.

Yes, Saddam was a monster. But this film's Iraq segment is not about Saddam, it's about USA's illegal invasion on the phony pretext of WMDs and "war on terrorism". Saddam's prisons and rape chambers are not relevant here. If some other country unilaterally attacks USA tomorrow and a filmmaker makes a film on that, would you expect that film to discuss how US prison system is biased against blacks? We should also remember Saddam was practically installed by CIA when Qassim started nationalizing foreign oil interests. Most of Saddam's monstrous atrocities happened during the 80s when USA had very good relation with him. So just pointing out he is evil does not really balance out much and does not even begin to exonerate the invasion.

It cannot be denied that children laughed, smiled and played even in Saddam's Iraq and some of them died, were maimed and lost their family because of Bush's decision. It's a direct cause-and-effect, decision-consequence. There is no bias or spin in the cross-cutting images of children playing and Bush declaring invasion. One can consider those images manipulative or disingenuous only if they have a vested interest in warfare or they are trying to assuage a guilty conscience.

[Bluebear]

64. Welcome to DU outsider!

[ronabop]

65. ITYM

"burn motherfucker, burn"

I don't recall a "die, motherfuckers" part of the movie.

-Bop

[the_outsider]

71. Yes, you are right

Original post said "die", I copied from it without looking it up.

[davekriss]

66. "I mean how dare Moore second-guess Bush"

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.
---Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

[Zomby Woof]

72. heh heh, I am hungry

One of my favorite right-wing talking points is the "It wasn't all bliss and kite-flying for those kids! Saddam was a BRUTAL DICTATOR and don't you forget it!"

Well, no shit. We all tire of that false dichotomy that showing actual film of children at play is invalidated because it occurred under a brutal dictatorship, and because of this dictatorship, that it somehow VALIDATED THE PRE-EMPTIVE AND UNNECESSARY WAR WE WAGED. In fact, the "Saddam gassed/killed/murdered his own people!" line is trotted out as an all-purpose rationale for the war all the time - except when Bush said it was about WMD's. Or about violating UN inspection procedures. If that is the ratonale we insist has moral and/or logical superiority, then we damn well better be invading China, North Korea, Iran, and any number of tinhorn despot countries in Africa very soon. But there is NO LOGIC or even SIMPLE PRAGMATISM to conservative rationale, and no moral courage either. There is no there, there. Saddam was contained, he was no threat beyond his borders, and although it is all well and good he can no longer kill people for his own ends, nature abhors a vacuum, and now 100 despots, clerics, and zealots of all stripes are running the country and inciting unrest. In retrospect, this was no Hitler running roughshod over an entire continent. I am all for stopping tinhorns like Saddam, but not with a rationale built on lies, false dichotomies, and bogus intelligence reports - flavored with terrorist fear and Toby Keith-style jingoism. Waging this war showed an astrounding lack of imagination and a moral hypocrisy unprecedented in recent White House history.

The reason Moore showed the children in Baghdad playing was NOT to make a statement that life was really swell under Saddam. That is the implicit, and therefore really STUPID assessment of conservatives about that clip.

It was to CONTRAST IT to the hell that came later when we invaded and blew the limbs off those children. But as America, our moral leeway over Saddam must never be questioned. No sirree!

Rise for the flag salute.

No benefit of the doubt from me. And no welcome mat either.

[NightOwwl]

73. ZombyWoof

:yourock:

[tkmorris]

74. Tell em da Zomby Troof <nt>

[Judi Lynn]

76. Thank goodness you showed up! Excellent post. n/t

[CaTeacher]

77. art is what it is.

A piece of art impacts different people in different ways. Some people will love it and some will hate it. I respect your right to have whatever feelings and opinions are true to your experience.

[union_maid]

80. Actually, a lot of Iraqis WERE just going about their lives

Brutal dictatorships are the way of life in too much of the world. We can't remove all of them. I recall a piece on the news during the lead-up to the war. It was just days before we invaded, but the Iraqi people were not really informed of that. Free press is not a feature of brutal dictaorships, so citizens don't get a chance to get out of the way before being shocked and awed, innocent though they may be. However, interviews with Iraqis on the street were obtained. One guy wasn't all that interested in politics. Body building was more his thing. In another piece - I think it was a print article - a horse trainer didn't really care whether it was Saddam or the U.S. He said he would still be with the horses and that's what mattered to him. Saddam's men didn't come for everyone. Most people just lived their lives in the way that they were accustomed to. Saddam was bad, but no worse than many regimes we as a nation have supported..oh..wait a minute..didn't we used to support Saddam's regime? And wasn't he a brutal dictator then, too?

[Zomby Woof]

116. yes, thank you

Seriously, thank you - you fleshed out my points well. I was very tired and it was very late... :-)

I just had to get across that children flying kites in no way was an endorsement of Saddam, which is what simpleton wingnuts seem the believe.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. We all know that our heroic troops would never do naughty things.

They are just there building schools and handing out Fruit-Loops to thrilled, cheering, little tots who just adore them. All that shooting and bombing going on there now are just overjoyed Iraqis enthusiastically welcoming our heroes. The troops aren't really blowing up buildings they're just clearing out some old buildings that will be replaced by Toy's R Us and playgrounds.

No doubt our beloved president was stunned when he heard the news. After all, he had the responsibility of deciding what flight suit to wear when he declared "mission accomplished" after destroying a third world country with a prostrate military that posed no threat to Amurka and had nothing to do with the attacks.

Yes, that durned Michael Moore was just too unkind and slanted in his coverage of the doings of the president and our heroic, benevolent, fun loving troops.

[Q]

84. unfair and malicious?

- That described the Bush* Smear Machine in a nutshell.

- Bush's* job and DUTY...as Commander in Chief...is not to sit there as America is attacked. Many things just don't happen unless the COMMANDER orders it to happen. He's at the TOP of the chain of command. For him to sit there and not take charge is a deleliction of duty.

- YOU may have sat there like a deer in headlights...but many of US would have done our jobs and tried our best to defend America.

- Now that you mention it...NONE of the Bush* admin. was 'available' that day to take charge or issue a response to the attack.

- Why do I get the feeling that you wouldn't have been so 'compassionate' if a Democrat had been in office at the time?

[Darranar]

85. It is horrid that Moore forgot to protray the benevolence...

of the US and the righteousness of its slaughter of innocent Iraqis. How dare that anti-American commie do such a thing!

[Cocoa]

87. your views are pretty common

in fact, you could think all those things without even seeing the movie, just read many reviews, which say those exact things you said.

[gottaB]

88. yes and no

Overall I liked it and would recommend it. There were parts I disliked intensely, and still do, for pretty much the reasons you dislike the movie, namely, I thought they were biased, manipulative, misleading, and disrespectful of my intelligence.

Set aside the notion of "propaganda" for a moment. Some of these issues crop up in any discourse that attempts to persuade, especially overtly political discourse. I read Mother Jones, I listen to Al Franken, and sometimes I ask myself why. Why? I'm not going to change my vote. I can't vote for Kerry/Edwards any more than I already intend to. So it's not like I need to be convinced or persuaded.

So what's the deal? Narcissism? Idleness? Is the world so bewildering and frightening to me that I long for the security of groupthink, and will gladly sacrifice my own identity as a thinker for the sake of cheap affirmations, no matter how transparently stupid or wrong or phony? To be honest, I think that's a side of anybody's media intake. It's not the whole story, though.

In positive terms, people want to be informed. They want to be enabled to make informed political decisions because they have a sense that such decisions are consequential and they care about the kind of world they live in. Overtly biased discourses can enable informed decision making by drawing connections between sets of information and political outcomes--or, conversely, what ammounts to the same thing, connecting political motivations to factual occurences. In certain circumstances, the slanted outlook is better able to accomplish this than a more objective point of view would be.

What cirsumstances? For instance, when political motivations are expertly concealed, or when media consensus forms around falsehoods that have not been fully questioned because certain biases have been systematically excluded from public discourses. It's my opinion that the current media environment has been methodically disrupted and, in a thousand quiet ways (and a few not so quiet), skewed in favor of an unsound and essentially unpopular political agenda, the effects of which cannot be appreciated by consumers of such media unless they have recourse to ample alternative sources of information.

In that context, Moore's film plays a crucial role both as a corrective and as an indictment of mainstream media. That's one reason I wouldn't label it as propaganda. Another is that Moore's biases are quite apparent. To the extent that he doesn't claim to represent *the* truth, but rather only the truth as he sees it, it doesn't come off as propagandistic. Yet another reason is that Moore's film is deliberately provocative. It raises questions and stimulates discussion more than it dictates pat answers and truths. In that way it's not at all like propaganda.

So then, I see my problem with fully embracing the film as one of disliking some of Moore's biases, and of not drawing some of the connections between facts and political motivations that he does. Nevertheless, I can appreciate his perspective, and I acknowledge there were many parts of the movie that I found informative and moving as well. I guess if the whole thing just struck me as wrong and domineering, then I'd find it reprehensible even if I didn't regard it as propaganda. It just didn't seem that way to me.

[emulatorloo]

89. A symphathetic portrayal of soldiers:they start out naive,then grow up

Early in the war, Moore shows them as naive, thinking War is just another video game w rock music.

By the end, they are seeing that they are protecting Halliburton and have been manipulated by repugs.

His portrayal of troops is pretty sympathetic, IMHO.

[hexola]

90. My mother and girlfriend couldn't stay awake through the whole thing...

I mean how dare Moore second-guess Bush and try to imply that Bush was somehow callous and apathetic to the devastating news that terrorists had attacked the World Trade Center. Anyone could clearly see that he was visibly shaken and disturbed by the news, just like other human being. He should NOT be unfairly attacked for sitting there in shock. Anyone of us would have done the same thing

Yes - but "any of us" are not the President of the United States. I didn't take it as an attempt to show Bush as "callous and apathetic." The point was that Bush has poor leadership qualities. He is indecisive under pressure.

If Bush had jumped up immeadiately or canceled the school event - Freepers would be tooting their horns about Bush's "decisive actions" on 9-11.

What was more ludicrous and simply disingenuous was Moore's completely slanted portrayal of the war in Iraq

I dont think the point was a "portrayal" of the war in total...just showing some of the less savory aspects as proof of how sanitized our news coverage is.

His portrayal of smiling and laughing children playing in the streets of Baghdad before American bombs rained down gave the false impression that life under Saddam Hussein wasn't all that bad. Where were the pictures of Saddam's torture chambers?

The point is - the realities of everyday life, for most people, are very similar...no matter what political conditions you live under. You get up - you go to the bathroom - you go do some work - you come home...kids play.

I thought the film was sort of weak. The editing seemed a bit choppy...like he couldn't quite even out the presentation of each portion of the story. The film is likley to have more of an effect on folks less familiar with the Bush-Saudi connection...DU'ers may have found this film a snooze...Like - "heard it"

[Snellius]

91. Sometimes you have to exaggerate to get attention

Sometimes you have to yell to get heard.

Yes, if this were a sane, rational culture, not dominated by the state-run, corporate media, yes, then Michael Moore would be going too far. But under the circumstances, do you really believe an intelligent and sober Frontline documentary on PBS would have made the point? The culture wars is way past being a debating contest.

[RetroLounge]

93. "To be clear, I am a committed liberal Democrat"

uhmmmmm. okay... If you say so.

RL

[Oilwellian]

94. Lucky me! I hit the Trifecta!

How could we possibly second-guess a president who repeated that ad nauseum on the 2000 campaign trail and after the carnage of 911?

[AngryAmish]

96. I like to think for myself

Therefore, I have skipped F 9-11. MM turns me off. His movies have the emotional depth of Paul Harvey.

[Eloriel]

184. The emotional depth of Paul Harvey?

What the hell does that mean?

Actually, I've heard Paul Harvey get fairly emotional, about emotional subjects.

In any case, F911 has caused grown men -- REPUBLICSAN MEN -- to cry. A lot (a lot of crying AND a lot of grown men). But yet you feel you have the capacity to criticize a film you haven't even seen as lacking in emotional depth.

:shrug:

I just don't get it. (And neither, I suspect, do you.)

[NMDemDist2]

208. when I went to see F9/11 we sat next to a couple (late 40's) whose son

was a Navy medic attached to the Marines in Fallujah. The dad was a blue collar looking guy who told hubby he was a vet also.

The man was in tears as the house lights came up.

re: the 7 minutes in the classroom, I can almost forgive * that one if not for the additional 20 minute photo op after he left the classroom! That's the one that really burns me up.

[Cha]

186. You might want to check this one out instead of being

prejudiced.

You can still think for yourself, btw.

[Uzybone]

206. yep, because watching F911

means you dont think for yourself. :eyes:

[Kazak]

97. Sometimes...

you've gotta grow a spine.

[tinanator]

98. the freepers

hated it.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasSissy]

124. True. Freeper alert engaged. The orig. post sounds just like freeper

posts I encounter in a bipartisan forum I participate in. The Gore part is thrown in to add authenticity. And it's missing the usual, "Leftie commie hypocrite" rantings, and the remarks about Moore being fat. Other than that, it's a freeper post through and through. So obvious.

[HuckleB]

101. Go see "Control Room"

No shrillness. No extrapolation. Just the evidence. It's stark. It's clear. It's powerful.

On the other hand, I would ask you to check out the sources Michael Moore used to make his claims. They are very well researched, and very good reads. Start with House of Saud, House of Bush, and also check out Moore's own Notes and Sources page:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16

Yes, there was some extrapolation, but I suspect that some parts of the movie come across as this, even when they're based in strong fact, as it's difficult to keep such a movie on pace if one interrupts to report every source and background item.

Anyway, everyone's taste is different. I was not as excited about the film as most folks, as I much prefer Moore's earlier work, and I also found Control Room to be far superior to F9/11. Anyway, salud.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TankLV]

138. These thoughts immediately passed my mind, too.

But I've had posts deleted for accusing someone of being a freeper, even tho they WREAKED of it!

All the "talking points" are there - complete with the "but I'm a democrat and HATE bush" protestations.

Kinda like the child that claims "but I am SO ..."

Methinks that he doth "protest" to much, too.

I am just soooo tired of wolfs in sheeps' clothing.

You shall know them by their actions, not words - to paraphrase.

Always look at RESULTS - not what people SAY they are going to do or are doing.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then maybe ...

[Hidebo]

103. All i can say is that

Bill O'Reilly will completely agree with you.

[bvar22]

105. The actor who played bush* in F911....

...was totally unconvincing in his role as Leader of the Free World! In fact, he was unconvincing in his role as a human being.
(not mine; borrowed)

The meme that it was really OK for bush*, our Commander in Chief, to continue to sit in shock while the US was under attack is an organized effort of the VRWC. Even they don't believe that.

Another version of 911 was released to cable and TV last year. In this Republican approved version of the events of 911, bush* immediately excuses himself, leaves the classroom, meets with his aids and advisors and issues some asinine John Wayneish TV dare for Osama to Come and get me if you want a fight!(not exact quote, but close IIRC).

The fact that the Republicans attempted to amend the REAL HISTORY of bush*s cowardly behavior on 911 proves that even they are embarrassed by this episode.

[EndElectoral]

106. I thought the film was a masterpiece

That footage of Iraqi children was real...

If you don't think what is coming out of the White House currently, and our major news afilliates isn't propaganda I got a bridge to sell ya in Brooklyn.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jokinomx]

109. jrharris....thanks for your post...

Your use of the english language is something to behold. I am impressed with your knowledge and your sources. You really must have had intelligent parents, who were openminded and allowed you to seek the truth on many issues.

:puke:

[Jokinomx]

108. I loved the film... I love Micheal Moore... why?

He speaks for the thoughts of so many frustrated "Proud Liberals". I don't agree with everything he says...but he gets attention to the issues that are important to me. I say read his books.. "Stupid White Men" and "Dude Where is My Country". You will get more information from them than the movie.

Something that really bothered me about chimp after the attack on the towers... for the next couple of days he was bouncing around the country in AirForce One... from city to city... to "Keep the enemy guessing" .... What the heck.. If I was REALLY scared about my safety as a President... wouldn't I just fly to Norad or a secret bunker somewhere. Not to run and hide... but to be able to monitor the situation properly...with no worries about my jet being shot down..

Something just doesn't seem right on how he handled this issue...

Maybe I am missing something..but.... it seems to me he was just confused on what to do.

Welcome to the DU...I look forward to reading you opinions... even though I don't agree with you on this topic.

[sadiesworld]

110. Your post is a real head-scratcher...

(OK, maybe not)

The thing is, most DUers have watched in increasing horror as the media have glossed over the stolen election, Bushco's indifference to terrorism pre-9/11 (I think Al Franken sums it up nicely with "Operation Ignore"), and the endless lies told in order to justify the Iraq invasion.

To FINALLY have someone actually say these things, and for these facts to be disseminated to the masses...well, it was/is a thing of beauty.

Fine, you may just be nit-picking (which is great fun and so easy to do when your own personal contribution simply amounts to posting on a message board) but to fail to see the importance of this movie? To miss the implications it has for the RW stranglehold on the media? To ignore the impact it may have on the election?

As I said, a real head-scratcher.
(or not)

[Individualist]

111. I have a suggestion for you

Learn the facts about the Bush regime and stop listening to the lies you're told by Limbaugh, Fox and CNN.

[ljm2002]

113. "He should NOT be unfairly attacked..."

"...for sitting there in shock. Anyone of us would have done the same thing."

See, that's the difference is how we see it: you think that showing actual footage of the President of the US when he is informed of an attack on our country, is an unfair attack on him. While I think we have a right to know. He's holding the highest public office in the land, and he was perfectly aware that cameras were rolling. Furthermore, he already knew of the first plane hitting the tower, before he ever entered the school that morning. Given that he should already have known there were other hijacked planes in the air, it is reasonable to ask why he continued on as though nothing was amiss.

Also, I have a question for you: why is it that this footage was never shown on any news outlet for the last 3 years? He was at a photo op attended by at least 8 TV news outlets, yet this portrayal of how he actually reacted to the news of the second plane hitting was never shown? The only reason this clip is available is that some enterprising person ran across it on the Booker School site on the internet and downloaded it. Otherwise, this little episode would have just disappeared down the ol' memory hole -- even though it was caught on video by several news organizations at a scheduled photo op. They probably all still have the footage in their vaults -- unless, of course, it was mysteriously destroyed or disappeared...

So you feel sorry for the guy? I feel sorry for the people who lost their lives and those who lost their loved ones on that day. And I think that George and his family's complicity and dealings with the Saudis and their clumsy (at best) handling of relations with them and with the Taliban and etc. etc. contributed directly to the events of 9/11. I think that someone who fought as hard as he did to hold the office of President of the United States and Commander In Chief of our armed forces, owes us at least the old college try when it comes to actually performing the duties of said office. I think that he failed miserably -- and that's the *best* you can say. Some of us have darker musings about what was actually going on. Personally, I though Michael Moore was too mild in his comments as the tape rolled -- but that's just me.

[formernaderite]

115. I happen to have enjoyed the movie, but it definitely preached to...

...the choir. Was it perhaps just a bit over the top...Yes. So what, that's why I went to see it. Did it turn anyone away from the darkside? Nah...

[IronLionZion]

117. so you're that one guy

who didn't like the movie.

I was slightly disappointed because I knew most of what was in it. And also that Moore showed the Saudi influence but not Israel or Pakistan (Pakistan, not Palestine).

And you had to have known how biased it was before seeing it. I mean come on! It's Michael friggin Moore!

[underseasurveyor]

119. This is what jumped out at me about this post.

First off let me say, Welcome to DU ImThatOneGuy :hi:

I haven't seen F911 yet, but I will. Most of the material I've read and heard about the movie I am familiar with even without seeing the film.

But what strikes me the most about ITOG's post, given his age, the times being what they are, the sorry state of the media plus the overwhelming amount of diversions through video games and other endless forms of entertainment today, IS........ The unconscious conditioning of what is now commonly considered acceptable thought and ideals and what is not where leaders are concerned. Without batting an eye or giving serious consideration to statements like, "how dare MM second-guess bush" as if it has always been normal and unthinkable to ever "second-guess" or question a president. People have forgotten that they/government are suppose to work for us. They are not to be held on a pedestal so high as to be untouchable or unquestionable and unaccountable. Yet more and more I'm noticing this dangerous and unconscious knee-jerk thinking.

"He should NOT(?) be unfairly attacked for sitting there in shock." There it is again, "he should NOT"??? Why not? He's the pResident, of course he SHOULD, it is our duty and our job as citizens to second-guess and question those that WE place in a position of power to HELP US govern our country. PLUS ITOG you said, "..and how George Bush stole the election." But notice the conditioning of thought here, that no matter how somebody comes into power we 'dare not' question or 'second-guess' them??? Ever? About anything? Sorry but what is wrong with this picture :wtf:

I'm glad that you are a committed Liberal Democrat and that you have a greater awareness than a lot of people in the US, but man ImThatOneGuy maybe it's time to ask yourself why and where these supposedly unacceptable auto-messages you have of 'not second-guessing' a prez or the 'he should not be' distortions are coming from. Think about it. Seriously. Read '1984'.

The thought police are doing a dandy job of manipulating and molding minds, aren't they x( :scared:

Question Authority my good Lad. Always remember that!

[DemonFighterLives]

121. What can I add?

After the first post, I was ready to vote you off the island. After reading further, I realized that you were just another movie reviewer and art critic. Amazing that most of what you said followed the media line, hook and sinker.
Mr Moore actually went quite easy on *. He should be tarred and feathered for what he has done to our country. From the silent coup to the illegal war on a sovereign nation to his total ineptness of foreign policy.
I believe what I would have done is left the kiddies and gone to consult with the supposed experts in the administration. I would not have been able to sit there inactive. Too many questions to ask, too many people to confer with. The Pet Goat story would still be there when everything else settled down.
I'm not trying to make Moore a god, but he sure opened a few eyes.
Stick around, you will surely shake off the fox type beliefs that you have. :grouphug:

[Cat Atomic]

122. His "slanted portrayal of the war in Iraq"?

Moore showed footage that none of cheerleading press would ever show. What's the point of playing the DoD-approved happy bullshit again? That side is shown non-stop on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and all the rest.

Moores played footage of soldiers acting in less-than-heroic ways, and that jumps out at you as unusual. Well, that's sort of the point.

Moore was showing the other sides of this invasion. He showed things the war hawks don't want you to think about. Real life isn't a cartoon.

[agincourt]

123. Frankly,

I thought he was a little soft on the Crawford criminal in chief. If you're going to take on the Bush crime family, go all the way.

[peekaloo]

127. The smiling and laughing children scene helped to underscore

the later pronouncement from Herr Rumsfeld that the bombs were "humane" in their precision. Lots of innocent Iraqis were treated to such "humanity".

[onecitizen]

130. I just have to ask you.......

why did you come to DU to post this message? Surely you must have known you wouldn't be greeted with candy and roses. Mike Moore has never tried to hide his political leanings. Based on that alone, you should have known what the film would be like. HE LEANS LEFT! News flash!

[gulliver]

131. I didn't like it as much as most. But I have to disagree with you.

Moore wasn't suggesting Bush was "callous and apathetic" sitting in that classroom after he had just been told that a second plane had hit the WTC. Moore was suggesting that Bush thought somone had screwed him and that he didn't know what to do. Moore also suggested that Bush was remembering what he had been told about Al Qaeda threats only a month before.

It was in no way unfair and malicious. Bush showed himself for all to see in that moment. I only wish Moore had just shown the whole seven (7) minutes of the video side-by-side with a graphic tracking the course of the plane that later hit the Pentagon. It would have been quite a contrast. Clueless Bush wondering when someone will tell him what to do just sits there as a hijacked plane makes its way toward Washington DC.

Then Moore also misedited the "Now watch this drive" sequence. Bush actually made that callous and stupid joke hours after 9 people died in a suicide bombing. Moore didn't tell us that, leaving many to conclude that it was just a case of a "busy president" recording some perfunctory message. It wasn't. It was a callous man segueing from a suicide bombing to a golf drive with a smirk and a joke.

[TankLV]

132. I thought it was PERFECT - and about time!

It felt great to see the absolute, unadulterated, uvarnished TRUTH exposed on the big screen.

There was not a single untruthful statement in the entire film.

I was crying during the story about that woman who lost her son because of LIES.

I renewed and energized my anger towards this bunch of treasonous cowards that occupy OUR White House and control OUR government - ILLEGALLY!

I WILL NEVER GET OVER IT!

[leesa]

How DARE he? It ain't hard baby when you are dealing with the Bush

Crime Family. You are displaying your lack of understanding as to what went down that day. How about you start catching up instead of blah, blah, blah...

[Lostnote03]

135. Couldn't Stand Up!!!!!!!!

......For Bush to NOT even get his butt up out of the chair speaks volumes to this individual....Sorry but I am in TOTAL disagreement with the author of this post.....

[in_cog_ni_to]

139. I LOVED the movie!

I liked it so much, I saw it twice and just pre-ordered the DVD. He EXPOSED the BFEE and Saudi relationship, the lies of the administration, the ignorance of the chimp, the spineless wonders we call Senators and the TRUTH about WAR.

Moore said upfront....he's partisan. You should have known what to expect.

The movie, IMO, was the BEST thing to happen to the Dem party in YEARS. Moore's a hero.

[carpetbagger]

142. I don't sit in shock when sh*t hits the fan.

It can be argued that I'm a doctor, and so I have experience, but George Bush is a trained fighter pilot.

I've been called out of classes with children for emergencies. It's very simple. You just say you have to do some doctor things, and that you promise you'll come back another day, or later that day.

If you don't have a clue about what's going on, and I've been there in clinical emergencies that I've been in charge of, you do something that's a very basic principle of management and command. You ask your subordinates for their assessment and recommendations. Then you choose what sounds good. But you can't do that if you're sitting in a classroom in shock. You can only do that when you're sitting in your airplane, limo, conference room, hallway, etc. in shock.

Dude froze. He froze and the media nevertheless called him a decisive man of courage. Most people see him that way. But the dude froze, and a fair and balanced look at the guy would show both George with the bullhorn as well as George daydreaming while there was work to do.

[West Coast Democrat]

143. I don't think you even saw the movie

I'd like to quiz you on a few details, and if you can answer them, I'll believe you actually saw the movie.

[ImThatOneGuy]

145. Sure shoot your questions

I watched the movie, but it was at least a month and half ago. Sorry I didn't post earlier...but my post count was too low.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

147. I was only disappointed because I thought he'd cover the patriot act more.

I also thought that he could have found things that were more damning of Bush that were out and out provable instead of going for something that is NOT 100% provable.

I was still liked the movie and I'm happy that Moore made it. He's a hero in my book - and the fact that he had the guts to make it and endure death threats, etc. makes me give it four stars.

[SemperEadem]

148. what would you have done differently?

given Bush a pass on everything?

[ImThatOneGuy]

151. What I would have DONE differently

I would just stop making the cheap shots...anyone who is in the public spotlight, let alone the leader of the free world, has said countless things on camera, whether on or off the record. With enough snipping and copying and pasting, ANYONE could be made out to be a Communist or a Fascist.

Moore's message would have been that MUCH stronger and persuasive if he limited the personal attacks and attacked the facts concerning the failed policies of the Bush Administration. So much of this movie is just preaching to the choir and Moore is perfectly in his right to make such a film. However, it is MY PERSONAL OPINION that some of his personal attacks on Bush were just plain cheap shots made to simply demonize him.

Moore should have just let the facts and the record indict Bush and his cronies. His message would have been louder and clearer, in MY opinion. That's all I'm saying.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

157. Michael Moore is a god - but I'm afraid I have to agree with you....

n/t

[Krasnaya Lastochka]

153. I see your point...

I see your point, ImThatOneGuy. I admit that I myself had a few moments when I thought "oh no, Mike is becoming just like those right-wing spin doctors and propagandists," and I still have those thoughts.
But, in my opinion, "Farenheit 9/11" remains a very powerful piece of work and a call to arms against all the injustice and corruption that has snuck into our country under the cover of patriotism. (Here I must admit a rather foolish thing: when I saw this movie in the theater, at the end I stood up in my seat and shouted "Citizens of America, unite against injustice!!" But I'd always wanted to do something like that.) :-)

Regarding the scene with the smiling laughing children, I think it was one of the most powerful scenes in the whole movie. The juxtaposition of first the happy, innocent little kids and then all of a sudden, the horrible explosions and fires of our 'shock and awe'...oh God it still makes me sick. I cried at that scene, and the sound of the bombs and the fire engulfing everything...AND FOR WHAT???
It served to illuminate very well what is already becoming my catch-phrase on DU: WAR IS HELL.

:nuke: :cry: :nuke:

[kabalevski]

155. wow..

.. some of YALL.. sure aren't very trusting.. looking at the size of the Thread... it seems like.. whether you like this kid/guy/who-ever he is!! or not..... he sure amused everyone for a while..
So even if he is an EVIL BUSH SPY... isn't it still good to have someone around to argue with?... maybe?.. maybe not?..

(yawn)

[SemperEadem]

156. you are wrong about 'anyone of us would have done the same thing'

instead, it should say "any of us who had no real experience in the military, but are idealistic as hell, had a greater likelihood of sitting stunned".

Perhaps you would have sat stunned like a deer in the headlights, but if you're the leader of a country, that is a luxury that you cannot afford. Bush went to extreme lengths to steal the election and less than a year into his presidency, when real crisis strikes, he just sits there with a case of the vapours when our country came under attack.

Perhaps you didn't come on here to sound like an apologist, but dumping on Moore's movie, especially at this website, is something that is not going to be received very well. Too many people here are so well educated on Bush and his bs that anything that sounds like it could be interpreted as an apology for Bush is going to be run down.

To answer your initial question: No, we don't agree with your assessment.

[PeaceForever]

180. Yes definitely.

There were never stories of any other president sitting blankly while a crisis unfolded, at least none that I can think of. Bush's behavior was NOT normal.

[Columbia]

158. F 9/11 SUCKED!!!

I wasn't in it!

[Ronnie]

159. "He should NOT be unfairly attacked

for sitting there in shock. Anyone of us would have done the same thing."
I just read this on another thread: "The Firefighters didn't sit there seven minutes."
And quite frankly, I don't think I would have either.

But then again, every time I see it I'm more and more convinced he was having some kind of seizure.

[rocktivity]

160. Moore wasn't TRYING to be fair and balanced

He was trying to report what the right-wing mainstream media would not.

Now, please check this out: http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

It shows that Bush knew that the first WTC tower had been hit before he left to go to the school. Not only should he have never arrived there, he endangered those in the school because his appearance was public knowledge. Oh, and keep in mind he'd received a memo "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." less than a month earlier.

:headbang:
rocknation

[NEDem]

161. not 'propaganda'

By the very definition of 'propaganda' this movie doesn't qualify. The reason is simple: Once you begin to discuss the contents of the movie it ceases to be propaganda. If it was propaganda you wouldn't be discussing it.

Frankly I think its the best expose' of this illegal administration that will ever be seen.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

162. This is where you lost me dude:

"But I believe that a lot of these personal attacks on Bush to be simply unfair and malicious. Most especially reprehensible was the scene in the elementary school classroom. I mean how dare Moore second-guess Bush and try to imply that Bush was somehow callous and apathetic to the devastating news that terrorists had attacked the World Trade Center. Anyone could clearly see that he was visibly shaken and disturbed by the news, just like other human being. He should NOT be unfairly attacked for sitting there in shock. Anyone of us would have done the same thing."

Um, ok no, first of all, not anyone of us would have done the same thing. I would have stood up, excused myself with a smile, gave some explanation as to why I had to go (they were BETWEEN reading drills when that happened!) and simply gone out very calmly. They had a secure room set up in a classroom next door and I would have been briefed there and then LEFT.

As president, I would NOT have wanted to possibly endanger all those children by staying there any longer than was absolutely necessary. And a SECOND plane hitting a SECOND tower was no accident. Remember Card said, "We are under attack."

So no, I would not have done what bush did. Sorry.

You are clearly a bush supporter thinly veiling your feelings for the purpose of trolling here. It didn't work on me.

Thanks for playing.

[ImThatOneGuy]

167. Wrong word

There's been a lot of angry remarks over certain lines in my original post (see WAY above) Here they are again...

Line 1: "He should NOT be unfairly attacked for sitting there in shock. Anyone of us would have done the same thing."

Line 2: "How dare Moore second-guess Bush..."

Okay in retrospect, i should not have used the word "would" to describe the first line. I should have used the word "could". Secondly, people have been taking the second line OUT of context. I'm not saying NO ONE should second-guess Bush. This is a free country and the citizens are entitled to the truth from their leaders. However, in this context, line 2 refers to Moore's blatantly cheap shot to demonize Bush during a time of crisis.

Let me AGAIN reaffirm that I am not some sort of apologist or defender for Bush's policies. I am merely expressing MY disagreement with Moore's filmmaking techniques. I believe that the personal attacks are cheap shots and in the end are counter-productive. His message would have THAT MUCH stronger if Moore had merely let the facts and the record speak for themselves.

[kcwayne]

181. But the facts and the record are that Bush did nothing

but sit passively with a confused demeanor with full knowledge that the US was under attack, and you are saying that calling attention to that is a cheap shot. It is not a cheap shot to point out that the President did nothing, because that is exactly what happened.

That is a strong message that the general public has not heard from CNN, FOX, et al whom have portrayed Bush as a decisive leader, and they even fabricated a fictional movie about his heroism following the attack that showed him to be exactly what he was not. Moore showed the truth of what happened on 9/11, the media told and sold us a lie.

Bush failed miserably on two fronts. Upon hearing about the first plane, he should have been marshaling the civilian and military leadership to quantify the threat condition (attack or accident). Upon hearing about the second plane, the threat condition was known, but the magnitude was not, and he should have been executing a plan that would address the threat, such plan having been worked out in advance. What if the terrorists had been more effective, and hijacked 50 planes across the US and were preparing to crash them into various targets around the US? The lost time in scrambling the Air Force to respond to the hijacked aircraft could have meant the difference between 3,000 and 100,000 lives.

Even though the administration had knowledge that terrorists were planning to hijack planes and use them as bombs, they had not developed a protocol for what to do in either this specific event, or in the general event of a large scale attack against the civilian population inside the US. Such a plan would detail the chain of command and or events that would transfer control of the decision to down civilian aircraft to the military. The military does not have authority to make that decision on their own, and it is imperative that civilian leadership have a protocol for giving the authority to the military on an as needed basis.

With leadership comes responsibility. There is the responsibility to be prepared, and the responsibility to act to events for which you have prepared, as well as those for which you are not. Any junior grade officer in the military that sat idle for 7 minutes when his unit came under fire would be relieved of command, and possibly court marshaled. Why should we expect less of the Commander in Chief? Moore was not critical enough of the President in this segment, because he spent no time discussing the obvious preparedness issues that I have raised here, and were part of the 9/11 commission investigation as well.

[Lerkfish]

192. dude, the office of president REQUIRES you to act correctly in a crisis...

the POTUS is not susie brown of the girl scouts who lives down the street that you buy mint cookies from every spring.

We elect people to LEAD, not to go into epileptic seizure when there's a crisis. Guess what? the entire job of being president is dealing with one crisis after another.
If you are giving him a slide on his responsibility to run the most powerful country on earth, then you admitting he's grossly underqualified for the job. In fact, I would NOT put Bush and qualified in the same sentence.

HERE"S something you need to understand: the ONLY person who can authorize the shooting down of a passenger plane by military aircraft IS THE PRESIDENT. Because he sat frozen, the order to allow military aircraft to shoot down what were essentially guided missiles, the order DID NOT REACH THE MILITARY JETS IN TIME to shoot down or redirect the number 2, 3, and 4 Hijacked planes.

That means BECAUSE BUSH FAILED IN EXECUTING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF HIS OFFICE, more americans died needlessly due to his incompetence.

How dare moore expose his incompetence? HOW DARE YOU attempt to apologize for it.

[PeaceForever]

164. LOL, the parent post is fake.

What gives it away is this: "pictures of our soldiers giving food to needy children or helping to build schools and helping Iraqi children get an education"

Only a pro-war propagandist would use that sort of phraseology.

Interestingly, you can go back an read old newspapers from the 1960s, and you see the same thing, just with "South Vietnamese" in the place of "Iraqi."

[PeaceForever]

166. Even though the parent post was fake, one legitimate thing I thought was..

...that the stuff on the Saudis got a bit too college lecturish. MM could have tightened that section of the movie up a bit.

The rest of the film was superlative.

[FrankBooth]

165. Yes, Karl Rove didn't like it (NT)

NT

[Tosca]

168. I loved it.

The movie was cathartic. A refreshing, unabashed view of this administration from a man who is obviously anti-Bush for many good, justifiable reasons. We NEED rabble rousers, we NEED mudslingers for the democratic (small d) cause NOW more than ever. If he goes over board at times, so what? Michael always professes he wouldn't have to make this kind of movie if the fucking press did their real jobs and reported objectively. They simply don't any more. Someone has to fill the vacuum. Let it be Michael.

[ImThatOneGuy]

169. WOW this is simple incredible

I would have never thought my post would generate such a volume of replies and the level of diverse feedback. Although the VAST majority of you disagree with me, I respect and support your right to disagree with me. Its great and simply refreshing to have this type of discussion, although I regret to have read some of the more *cough* negative comments that were posted. lol

[The_Casual_Observer]

172. Root post is a worthless post

The points made in the root post are wholly without merit. The fact is chimp sat and did nothing for AT LEAST seven minutes with a goofy look on his face. This alone is proof that the clown was/is unfit to hold office of any kind. No matter how you try and justify his inaction, the fact remains that he did nothing but sit there like a pathetic child among children,confused and not knowing what to do next. Apologist for chimp have tried their best to cast a positive light on this embarrassment and disgrace in a fruitless attempt to absolve his sorry ass. However, all attempts fail. Remember, the jerk choose to ignore warnings that something big and terrible was going to happen in the US, just a few days before.

Chimp is a boob, a laughing stock, a disgrace to mankind. Why you would attempt some kind of half assed defense of his actions on this is beyond me.

[mbee]

170. Other than the top 1% a lot of the people who follow Bush do so because

they aren't real bright for starters. Maybe the movie was one-sided in a few areas, but for the most part I think it clearly demonstrated that we are not being protected here in the US. One of the most damming parts of the movie in my opinion was the unprotected shoreline that was shown by a part-time park person. Anyone who sees this knows Homeland Security is just a big joke. Overall Michael Moore did what had to be done. It is going to be hard to get these people out of the White House because they aren't supposed to be there in the first place.

[ImThatOneGuy]

171. What I LIKE about Fahrenheit 9/11

Since there's so much talk about what I disagree with Michael Moore about, I think its only fair to offer up what I like about this movie. The following are three key ideas that I thought was important and significant.

1. His expose of what really happened in Florida in 2000. The emotional scene on the Senate floor where NOT ONE Democratic Senator would stand up and call for a recount was especially moving and poignant. It has further bolstered my respect in Al Gore.

2. His revelation of the true state of our homeland security. The completely unprotected shoreline and the lone police officer who had to patrol that entire length was jus shocking and more so revealing of the dire need for a change in our policy.

3. The hilarious scene where agents of the Department of Homeland Security infiltrated that anti-war peace group. It reveals the true set of priorities that the Bush Administration has possessed. It had not been effective in fighting terrorism and has only sought to silence its critics.

There you have it, what i DID LIKE about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. All in all, I still didn't like the movie as a whole, but there are some redeeming gems in there as well.

[Tosca]

175. Just curious...

What do you make of Bush having a cozy dinner with Bandar Bush a day after 9/11?

Mere coincidence?

[ImThatOneGuy]

183. What's with all the attacks?

Seems that everyone's trying to pin some freeper or Repug label on me. Numerous claims have been made that im some sort of undercover con trying to stir up some trouble. I've been clear in several posts that i am definitely NOT a Republican or some other right-wing wacko with some hidden agenda. All I did was express why I did not like Moore's movie.

If people still want to read between the lines and try to ascertain my apparent ulterior motive, that's their right. But they're completely wrong to assume that I'm something that I'm most definitely not.

[Tosca]

189. It wasn't an attack.

I was wondering what you thought about the little get-together. Really.

But I can see why you'd be paranoid at this point.

[RodneyCK2]

198. This is typical, as I and a few others have discovered,

recently. It is a shame. My assumption as to why they attack instead of debating is that maybe some do not know how to debate. I chalk it up as something that would occur on a Repug forum, but as you bear witness on this thread, it occurs across the board.

I understand there are trolls that pop up, but you have to give people the benefit of the doubt initially and some do not. Like I said above, debating issues is healthy and can only make your wiser for it.

[ImThatOneGuy]

200. You're absolutely right

The fact remains that on both sides of the aisle, whether left-wing or right-wing, conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, there are extremists and radicals on both sides. They are intent on pushing their own political agenda and will stop at nothing at accomplish that. They completely shut down discussion and debate and attempt to villainize anyone who attempts to create a dialogue with them.

We need to stop being so close minded, so intolerant of other people's ideas. That's what makes us a democracy. We have the ability to disagree and to dissent. However, the political atmosphere has become too poisonous and partisan to even allow a simple discussion to exist without resorting to name-calling and character assassination.

[Democat]

173. Anyone else? Yes, lots of Bush supporters didn't like the movie either

Is that what you meant? :)

[Nicholas_J]

177. Just because something is slanted

and even propaganda, doenst make the contents untrue.

What little good our soldiers are going in Iraq is irrelevant. Before the Gulf War, Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, and was the most technologically advanced nations in the Middle East. It had the best hospitals and medical care in the region, and most people in the region went to Baghdad for treament unless the illness was problematic to th degree of needing to b treated in either Britain or Germany.

Helpin Iraqi Children get an education. Again, Iraq actually had one of the highest rates of literacy in the Middle East, the largest percentage of its population being university educated, and had an even higher percentage of its professional population comprised of women than even the United States. Half of the Doctosrs in Iraq were women until the Gulf War, and even afterwards, a far greater percentage of Doctors in Iraq were women than in the United Staets. Iraq itself has a higher functional literacy rate than the United States.

Doing to Iraq for the greater part of the last decade what we do to Cuba as policy is not noble. In mediaval times it was known as seige warfare. Extending siege warfar to the political/economic arena is not noble either. The average Iraqi was better educated than the average American prior to the Gulf War. The average Iraqi had far better access to a rather advanced health care system prior to the Gulf War. THe average Iraqi was well fed and even provided food rations during the post Gulf War period.

Giving food to children who do not have food because you have totally destroyed the infrastructure that was providing it is not noble behavior.

Moore points out the obvious, and if it is ugly and propagandistic so be it. Husseins Government was a tyranical dictatorship, but people were not starving. One quarter of its population were not without access to health care. Its citizens, fron the smallest child to adults had access to a rather good system of education.

All this begs the question...why are so many Iraqi's unimpressed with the soldiers bringing food to little children, and providing the same littlechildren with an education?

Becasue it was never an issue to them before we got there and destroyed their own systems of providing these services.

The fact is the Moore is presenting the truth when he portrays life in Iraq prior to the relationship between the U.S. nad Saddams government went south.


Saddam tortured people. But the percentage of people that he tortured was certainly not in excess of the kind of torture that goes on in nations that we have the most cordial of relations with. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Even Jordan and Israel are not all that gentle in dealing with those they consider to be problematic. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

One must ask another question. As bad as Saddam was, why no strong andd active opposition to his government while he was running the place. There was even opposition to Hitler and Stalin while they were running rather brutal totalitarian states. The problem with trying to transplant what we call democracy to a people who talk about wanting it, but are not willing to make the sacrifices to fight to get it are obvious. Which is why not a single state in the ex Soviet Union has anything that resembles an American style democracy, and even the best are either unworkable parliamentary governments, or totalitarian states under the thin veil of being democratically run. Russia is all but ready to return to totalitarianism, Belorussia is flat out a dictatorship, as are most of the states of the ex-Yugoslavia, like Croatia, ruled by a strongman for most of the time since the Balkans started being Balkanized again.

Moore points out a very brutal truth about U.S. policy. That if a government is run in a way that we do not like, or by someone that we do not like, we blockade and economically boycott that nation, and spend considerable effort trying to bully our allies into doing so as well, so we can make life in those nations as hellish as possible for its citizens. When thatdidnt work with Iraq, and the Iraqi people did not outright revolt and overthrow Saddam, we had to just go and do it, not because Saddam was any worse than many other of our friends, but becasue he would not run when his master barked the command.

To sum it up. The Iraqis did not have it all that bad materially or culturally under Saddam. They lived in fear, but not enough fear to overthrow the government. Saddam had no more perfect a dictatorship or brutal control than literally a hundred other nations. The Iraqis wanted to keep those aspects of their lives that were materially pleasant under Hussein, but get rid of the dictatorship. But not enough to approve of the methods we used to get rid of it.

Perhaps the problem with those who do not like Moores propagandistic version of 9/11 and Iraq should first find out what Iraq was really like before they accept idea that even the Bush Administration does not make. That life was terrible in Iraq before we got there, from the material and cultural point of view. The BUsh Administration dicusses the good things like educating children that our sildiers do, and then leave it to the average America to assume that the children didnt get educated before we got there. Which is fairly untrue. But the Bush Administration never asserted it. People simply assumed. Moore disavows the American People of those assumtions in Farenheit 911

[Tosca]

190. What crap.

/To sum it up. The Iraqis did not have it all that bad materially
/or culturally under Saddam. They lived in fear, but not enough
/fear to overthrow the government.

Blame it on the powerless when they fail to overthrow a dictator. A dictator who modeled himself after Stalin. I can remember when Hussein held an election and won by 100 percent of the vote. Oh, yes, we love Hussein, he is our Savior. What the hell do you expect the average person to say when if he dares to dissent, he'll get his tongue cut out?

[DrBB]

178. "Anyone of us would have done the same thing"

Yes, well, er, maybe this is too obvious to point out but "anyone of us" doesn't happen to be Commander in Chief and President (however asterisked) of the United States.

You might have noticed that this person is entrusted with mammoth power and privilege and that his chief job, numero uno as they say, is to preserve and protect this nation? "Anyone of us" is not carrying around the launch codes that could launch the world-erasing power of the US nuclear arsenal either--didja notice that too?

This incredibly inane "I dunno if I'da done any better" excuse that C-plus Augustus always seems to be the beneficiary of is one of the most ridiculous, inanane and unforgivably misinformed views in US politics.

[KoKo]

188. Exactly, Dr. BB...I'm not P-Resident, but I would have been outta that

classroom demanding WTF happened here, and on the phone to everyone, even if I had to borrow the SS Agent's phones to do it! I would have been on the horn to Pataki, Guliani and anyone who was being beseiged and would have designated others in my Cabinet to be contacting EVERYONE in Military/NORAD/FTA to tell me what the "F" was being done!

He sat there staring at a book! Not READING IT to KIDS...STARING AT IT!

There's nothing that will ever make what he did okay with this American citizen. I've lived through many Presidents...I don't know ANY who were this seemingly clueless...and I suspect with this guy...it was more than clueless...he was aware of something else, and calm and collected while the "plans were put in place."

[kabalevski]

197. ... am i wrong?... or..

.. is Moore COOL about people downloading his movies..?? i thought i heard him saying that oncec.. and i want to download it.. lol...

[RhodaGrits]

209. All I know is that I don't want anyone to be holding the position of CIC

whose reaction to "America is under attack" is to continue to read a story about a pet goat to a bunch of little kids. Any reasonable person with ANY leadership skills would have disengaged themselves from that situation and assumed command so fast their lil heads would have been spinning. The man is either an incompetent idiot or complicitous. Those are the only two possibilities.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ImThatOneGuy]

193. Not making excuses for ANY side

I'm not making excuses or apologizing for extremists and radicals of any side. For all the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Coulters of the right out there, there is an equal collection of them on the left. Both are working to promote their own political agenda and both are disingenuous in their own ways.

The whole point of this thread is NOT to justify the war in Iraq or Bush's actions since in office. It is MY critique of Moore's filmmaking techniques, which I happen to disagree with. You can call me a conservative, a Nazi, a Fascist, or an ignorant Republican bigot for disagreeing with parts of Fahrenheit 9/11. That is your right. But in the process, you are no better than the people you claim to loathe so much.

[GalleryGod]

195. You were doing OK until your last sentence,Sparky: C-

Hand in your Blue Book & Go away.

Your man in the Faculty Lounge:hangover:
Still grading Lousy DUer Posts!
GG:smoke:

[ImThatOneGuy]

196. You're grading me?

You're grading me using what kind of rubric? Just some form of arbitrary standards that your opinion dictates? I don't think you're in a position to judge anyone's posts. Everyone is entitled to their own point of view. Its what makes us a democracy and it aslo separates us, free-thinking individuals, from extremists on boths sides of the aisle.

[RodneyCK2]

199. I hope this is a joke...

it suggest some sort of hierarchal system. A grader? Someone better fill the class in on the rules. Wouldn't want to step over the poorly drawn chalk line.

[linazelle]

202. "Any type of propoganda...is reprehensible..."

Can you explain how Moore's film is propoganda? The facts are not twisted. There are some interjections of his opinion but that is clear as he is narrating. He presents facts and lets the viewers read into it what they want. Most, who follow the reasonable man's rule of behavior, cannot understand why the leader of the free world was immobilized with the country was under attack. Others, like you, read into the same picture, sympathy because he was in shock. Did you sit for seven minutes after hearing a second plane hit? Most Americans didn't.

The big question which you fail to answer and which Bush and those who support anything he does are still struggling to answer is why he sat for seven minutes after being told a second plane hit. He knew a first plane had hit and he sat. Why? That's the ugly truth you don't want to face. Moore does not lie. It's a valid question. It's a fact that he behaved that way.

Propoganda, doesn't present all of the facts in all cases. It is distributed continuously through simple messages--usually with simple phrases and sound bytes like "flip flops" and "liberal" and "personal attacks." The simple lies of propoganda outweigh complex truths because the messages contain little detail but lots of appeal to strong emotions or sentiments.

[Bluebear]

203. More! More attention I say!

[against all enemies]

205. 2 anti-Democrat threads in one day?

You don't like F911 and you don't like "partial-birth abortion" (how about using the correct name - late term abortion). You may be a Democrat, if so, you should read more.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

210. I'm locking this thread

the person who started this thread has been banned .