Yay! Amy.
Too bad she doesn't speak to me anymore for some reason.
Add her to the list of women that won't speak to me. It's a long fucking list.
Fahrenheit 9/11
I'm not sure in what universe one can call Christopher Hitchens a neocon. I'm not familiar with his writing, but seriously doubt The Nation would have employed him as such for 20 years.
Yes, he is no longer a socialist and disagrees with The Left regarding the war on terror. The quick sample of his writings I just did shows a strong independence, not any blind following to a political ideology.
Yes, he is no longer a socialist and disagrees with The Left regarding the war on terror. The quick sample of his writings I just did shows a strong independence, not any blind following to a political ideology.
Hmm... Iraq was funding, supporting and training terrorists. Saddam had been planning and undertaking offensive actions against the U.S. both abroad and inside our own borders. United Nations resolutions were being ignored (regarding those WMD's of which there was proof) and U.N. troops were regularly being fired upon.
Naahhh, just because Saddam's government was already waging war against us as well as training terrorists and helping them develop weapons to use against us doesn't give us the right to lead a coalition of allies to take him out.
You seem to forget there are people out there who want to kill you simply because you are an American.
Naahhh, just because Saddam's government was already waging war against us as well as training terrorists and helping them develop weapons to use against us doesn't give us the right to lead a coalition of allies to take him out.
You seem to forget there are people out there who want to kill you simply because you are an American.
Hitchens is known for controversy, he does editorials not articles... so basically he can say what he wants and not have proof...
Last edited by the other on 27 Jun 2004 15:43, edited 1 time in total.
I would watch the imaginary news with you...Nuzman wrote: Hmm... Iraq was funding, supporting and training terrorists. Saddam had been planning and undertaking offensive actions against the U.S. both abroad and inside our own borders. United Nations resolutions were being ignored (regarding those WMD's of which there was proof) and U.N. troops were regularly being fired upon.
Naahhh, just because Saddam's government was already waging war against us as well as training terrorists and helping them develop weapons to use against us doesn't give us the right to lead a coalition of allies to take him out.
You seem to forget there are people out there who want to kill you simply because you are an American.
Fuck that. There are people who want to kill you just because you are innocent and you have a good heart. It aint just Americans. The Turks and South Koreans are also getting their heads lopped off by these fuckers for no reason other than the fact that they are not IraqisNuzman wrote: You seem to forget there are people out there who want to kill you simply because you are an American.
Last edited by UncleMao on 27 Jun 2004 15:50, edited 1 time in total.
-
Sunstrider
- Posts: 91
- Joined: 17 Jun 2004 15:45
- Location: New York
I guess violating the cease fire agreement of the first Gulf War 17 times by firing on U.S. planes and paying suicide bombers to blow themselves up in Israel was imaginary also.the other wrote:I would watch the imaginary news with you...Nuzman wrote: Hmm... Iraq was funding, supporting and training terrorists. Saddam had been planning and undertaking offensive actions against the U.S. both abroad and inside our own borders. United Nations resolutions were being ignored (regarding those WMD's of which there was proof) and U.N. troops were regularly being fired upon.
Naahhh, just because Saddam's government was already waging war against us as well as training terrorists and helping them develop weapons to use against us doesn't give us the right to lead a coalition of allies to take him out.
You seem to forget there are people out there who want to kill you simply because you are an American.
I never really 'got into' the whole 9/11 thing because i had no access to proper news media. At least media that would provide 24 hour a day news updates on the whole thing. It really wasn't until a full year later did i actually REALLY get to see what other people had already seen a million times over
It's sad but I was there that day working a morning tour in Queens. When the first plane hit we loaded up whatever Police cars we had (being a NYPD transit cop we depend mostly on trains) and went to the city. It was probably one of the only times I've ever seen the L.I.E. (long Island expressway) traffic free during the daytime. I'm not going into details here, I'm just going to say it was one of the worst thing you could ever witness (and I've been to war twice). As bad as it looked on TV multiply that by ten. I now have a souvenir in the form of a one inch scar on my forehead and images burned into my memories I will never forget.
Last edited by Sunstrider on 27 Jun 2004 17:48, edited 1 time in total.
-
al k holik
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 27 Jun 2004 12:03
Just got out of the 12:15 AM showing. Every seat full - they added this screening due to the demand all weekend. No old people (it's after midnight, for fuck's sake) but I think it was a case of Moore preaching to the choir, with this group, at least.
I'm actually pleased to hear that older folks are going to see the film. They VOTE. The crap they, like the rest of us, were fed before the start of the Iraqi invasion was convincing enough to most people to trust Bush's plan. That support was justification enough for Cowboy George to go ahead, with little to no international help, and throw the war party he wanted to. Regardless of lack of guilt for 9/11. Regardless of lack of actual real threats to America. Regardless of the loss of life on both sides guaranteed by such an attack. Regardless of the lack of any actual evidence that we should go to war in that country.
No new information here. It's refreshing to see it done in a way that connects the dots that trickled in through the media's filter. The elderly lady at the Bingo game or wherever it was said it best: "we were duped." Moore gives a convincing case.
And to the other stupid fucking newbie that's tired of Bush-bashing: no, it's NEVER going away. Not unless he can erase the last 3 or 4 years of history somehow. And as for wanting to kill us just because we're American, well, I don't think we're even TRYING to convince them to think otherwise. If anything, we're saying, well, "BRING IT ON."
I'm actually pleased to hear that older folks are going to see the film. They VOTE. The crap they, like the rest of us, were fed before the start of the Iraqi invasion was convincing enough to most people to trust Bush's plan. That support was justification enough for Cowboy George to go ahead, with little to no international help, and throw the war party he wanted to. Regardless of lack of guilt for 9/11. Regardless of lack of actual real threats to America. Regardless of the loss of life on both sides guaranteed by such an attack. Regardless of the lack of any actual evidence that we should go to war in that country.
No new information here. It's refreshing to see it done in a way that connects the dots that trickled in through the media's filter. The elderly lady at the Bingo game or wherever it was said it best: "we were duped." Moore gives a convincing case.
And to the other stupid fucking newbie that's tired of Bush-bashing: no, it's NEVER going away. Not unless he can erase the last 3 or 4 years of history somehow. And as for wanting to kill us just because we're American, well, I don't think we're even TRYING to convince them to think otherwise. If anything, we're saying, well, "BRING IT ON."
-
al k holik
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 27 Jun 2004 12:03
-
JonMichael
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 27 Jun 2004 21:56
Moore is a liar who pieces together information to portray it as true, while it is in fact a distortion of the truth. Example: The saudi flights were authorised by Richard Clarke, the Clinton moron holdover who Bush kept in his gov't. Richard Clarke said before the 9/11 commission that he "authorized the flights out of the US, and that it went no higher than myself". Not Bush.
Moore's movie bashes America's armed forces..The same ones that protect that fat bastard so he can keep eating doughnuts and lard.
By the way, we have found WMD's in Iraq! Anyone hear of the chemical attacks with sarin gas on our troops? What about the recent news of the canadian PM and the russians confirming their presence? What about the fact that most were shipped to syria and other nations, dismantled in some fashion, others intact?
Finally, here are some quotes from democrats regarding iraq/wmd.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence>reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Moore's movie bashes America's armed forces..The same ones that protect that fat bastard so he can keep eating doughnuts and lard.
By the way, we have found WMD's in Iraq! Anyone hear of the chemical attacks with sarin gas on our troops? What about the recent news of the canadian PM and the russians confirming their presence? What about the fact that most were shipped to syria and other nations, dismantled in some fashion, others intact?
Finally, here are some quotes from democrats regarding iraq/wmd.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence>reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
-
edotherocket
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 21 Jun 2004 19:20
Man, Michael Moore supporters give me the shits. The problem people have with Moore is not that he is anti-Bush, its that he uses such dodgy facts and misleading editing in his propaganda.
So do ANY of you actually have anything defending Moore's claims?
- Can any of you find an example of someone having their rights abused by the Patriot Act?
- Can someone explain to me the idea of 'signing up' your son to fight in Iraq? Does Michael Moore think 18 year olds are not able to have independant choice?
- Amazingly, Michael Moore is suprised when people are upset that he is lying to them and deliberately misleading. Check out this exercept from a recent Q&A with Roger Ebert:
- Can anyone actually make any tangible connection between Bush and the Bin Ladens? Because using Moore's own logic, you can link him to terrorism too.
If someone could answer those questions for me, that would be a good start.
So do ANY of you actually have anything defending Moore's claims?
- Can any of you find an example of someone having their rights abused by the Patriot Act?
- Can someone explain to me the idea of 'signing up' your son to fight in Iraq? Does Michael Moore think 18 year olds are not able to have independant choice?
- Amazingly, Michael Moore is suprised when people are upset that he is lying to them and deliberately misleading. Check out this exercept from a recent Q&A with Roger Ebert:
Roger Ebert, who is strongly Anti-Bush, asks some questions of Moore's misleading editing and Moore essentially tells him he should just go along with his bullshit.The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.
In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.
Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.
- Can anyone actually make any tangible connection between Bush and the Bin Ladens? Because using Moore's own logic, you can link him to terrorism too.
- Bush doesn't respond for the 11 minutes he is in the classroom reading to children. Can someone tell me exactly what you think he should've done in those eleven minutes?In Dude, Where's My Country, Michael Moore's conspiracy theory consists of tying the Bush family together with the bin Ladens and the Saudis (whom he regards as little better, in fact arguing that they and not Osama bin Laden -- "how could a guy, sitting in a cave in Afghanistan hooked up to dialysis, have directed and overseen the actions of nineteen terrorists for two years...." (p. 16).). The ties to the bin Ladens, Moore maintains, run through the Carlyle Group, to which both Bush Sr. and Jr. have ties, and in which the bin Ladens had an investment.
Let's use Moore's own approach . . . .[begin ominous music] . . . .
And probe the shadowy connections between Moore and the bin Ladens.
Moore's next film, Farenheit 911, is being underwritten by Miramax, to the tune of several million dollars. Miramax is a subsidiary of the Disney empire.
While Disney derives a lot of its income from Disney sweatshops in third world countries, that's not its only source of financing. It needed serious capital -- billions -- for its expansion into Euro Disney, and to bail out that project when it started to tank. And guess with whom Disney hopped into bed at that point?
To start with . . . the Carlyle Group with (Moore tells us) its bin Laden monies.
With the help of its 'access capitalists' such as Baker and Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal (whom the firm helped add to his fortune in a 1991 Citicorp stock transaction), [my note: remember the Prince's name; you'll see it again in this shadowy trail] Carlyle made deals in the Middle East and Western Europe (including a bailout of Euro Disney) in the mid-1990s.
Source
Carlyle numbers "Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud of Saudi Arabia, and Osama
bin Laden's estranged family among its high-profile clientele." Source.
Ah yes, the Prince....
About HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin AbdulAziz Alsaud
HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal and trusts for his benefit hold major business investments in Citigroup, Apple Computer Inc., Motorola, AOL Time Warner, Saks Inc., EuroDisney and Walt Disney Company, the Teledesic satellite venture.... SourceSaudi Arabia's billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal announced on Tuesday new investments
.... A statement from the prince`s office in Riyadh sent to Reuters said the new investments included stakes in Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co Inc, McDonald`s Corp, Walt Disney Co, . . .. His stakes in each of the above firms stood at $50 million, the statement said. Source
Back to Euro Disney. A major loss for the Disney Company, foundering until rescuers appeared. The Carlyle Group, and guess who?
A Saudi Arabian prince, Al-Waleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, swooped in to help rescue the struggling Euro Disney theme park, pledging to invest up to $500 million in Mickey Mouse's European home near Paris.
New Orleans Times-Picayune, Thursday, June 2, 1994, p. C-1. The Prince wound up a virtual Disney partner (Disney owns 39%, he 24%). And Disney is now turning to him for a second bailout.
So along comes a filmmaker who:
Has produced works which are the standard primers for anti-Americanism today;
Has put out movies and books provide the emotional underpinning for terrorism (If the US is, as he argues, a violent bully which kills thousands of third-world innocents, overthrows democracies, and supports dictatorships, it's hard to see anti-American terrorism as evil; in fact, it would seem more like a struggle of heroic underdogs);
Has plans for a new film which will hopefully un-elect a president who defeated and ejected the Taliban; and
Which (if it tracks his book Dude, Where's My Country) will suggest Osama bin Laden may not have done it, and in any event point the finger at everyone but him ....
And suddenly a company backed by an awful lot of bin Laden connected money (by his own definition) wants to pump millions into his film.
In short, I can (in about eight hours of research) produce a sample of paranoid ideation which is quite as plausible as Moore's Farenheit 911.
source: <a href='http://mooreexposed.com/paranoia.html' target='_blank'>http://mooreexposed.com/paranoia.html</a>
If someone could answer those questions for me, that would be a good start.
Yep, you will need biometric cards to cross the boarder from Canada to the USA.Can any of you find an example of someone having their rights abused by the Patriot Act?
*EDIT* Forgot to mention, that with the Patriot Act, the government can hold you for as long as they want. Also, the government is trying to introduce the Patriot Act 2. Its the beginning of 1984.
No he is not saying that, he is saying that the media is not showing the kids the truth. Do you really think that people want to send their kids into a pointless war.Can someone explain to me the idea of 'signing up' your son to fight in Iraq? Does Michael Moore think 18 year olds are not able to have independant choice?
You quoted the article from Ebert, what is the source?
Sure, its easy to connect the dots, but when you have so many dots going to one place, it no longer seems like a coincidence.Can anyone actually make any tangible connection between Bush and the Bin Ladens? Because using Moore's own logic, you can link him to terrorism too.
It wasn't 11min, it was 7min. And he looked dumbfounded, he knew that the first place hit before he got into the class. But he continued on, once he was told the second plane hit, most people in a leadership position would remain calm and collected, and get up and leave. Thanking the kids that where in the class room for their time. I think once the first plane hit, he should have forgotten about the photo-op and start worrying about the country.Bush doesn't respond for the 11 minutes he is in the classroom reading to children. Can someone tell me exactly what you think he should've done in those eleven minutes?
Last edited by ivaj on 28 Jun 2004 00:48, edited 1 time in total.
How Roger Ebert felt about THIS film
FAHRENHEIT 9/11
***1/2 ®
June 24, 2004
Lions Gate/IFC Films presents a documentary directed by Michael Moore. Narrated by Moore. Running time: 110 minutes. Rated R (some violent and disturbing images, and for language).
BY ROGER EBERT
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is less an expose of George W. Bush than a dramatization of what Moore sees as a failed and dangerous presidency. The charges in the film will not come as news to those who pay attention to politics, but Moore illustrates them with dramatic images and a relentless commentary track that essentially concludes Bush is incompetent, dishonest, failing in the war on terrorism, and has bad taste in friends.
Although Moore's narration ranges from outrage to sarcasm, the most devastating passage in the film speaks for itself. That's when Bush, who was reading My Pet Goat to a classroom of Florida children, is notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, and yet lingers with the kids for almost seven minutes before finally leaving the room. His inexplicable paralysis wasn't underlined in news reports at the time, and only Moore thought to contact the teacher in that schoolroom -- who, as it turned out, had made her own video of the visit. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there is odd indeed.
Bush, here and elsewhere in the film, is characterized as a man who owes a lot to his friends, including those who helped bail him out of business ventures. Moore places particular emphasis on what he sees as a long-term friendship between the Bush family (including both presidents) and powerful Saudi Arabians. More than $1.4 billion in Saudi money has flowed into the coffers of Bush family enterprises, he says, and after 9/11 the White House helped expedite flights out of the country carrying, among others, members of the bin Laden family (which disowns its most famous member).
Moore examines the military records released by Bush to explain his disappearance from the Texas Air National Guard, and finds that the name of another pilot has been blacked out. This pilot, he learns, was Bush's close friend James R. Bath, who became Texas money manager for the billionaire bin Ladens. Another indication of the closeness of the Bushes and the Saudis: The law firm of James Baker, the secretary of State for Bush's father, was hired by the Saudis to defend them against a suit by a group of 9/11 victims and survivors, who charged that the Saudis had financed al-Qaida.
To Moore, this is more evidence that Bush has an unhealthy relationship with the Saudis, and that it may have influenced his decision to go to war against Iraq at least partially on their behalf. The war itself Moore considers unjustified (no WMDs, no Hussein-bin Laden link), and he talks with American soldiers, including amputees, who complain bitterly about Bush's proposed cuts of military salaries at the same time he was sending them into a war that they (at least, the ones Moore spoke to) hated.
Moore also shows American military personnel who are apparently enjoying the war; he has footage of soldiers who use torture techniques not in a prison but in the field, where they hood an Iraqi prisoner, call him "Ali Baba" and pose for videos while touching his genitals.
Moore brings a fresh impact to familiar material by the way he marshals his images. We are all familiar with the controversy over the 2000 election, which was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. What I hadn't seen before was footage of the ratification of Bush's election by the U.S. Congress. An election can be debated at the request of one senator and one representative; 10 representatives rise to challenge it, but not a single senator. As Moore shows the challengers, one after another, we cannot help noting that they are eight black women, one Asian woman and one black man. They are all gaveled into silence by the chairman of the joint congressional session -- Vice President Al Gore. The urgency and futility of the scene reawakens old feelings for those who believe Bush is an illegitimate president.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" opens on a note not unlike Moore's earlier films, such as "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine." Moore, as narrator, brings humor and sarcasm to his comments, and occasionally appears onscreen in a gadfly role. It's vintage Moore, for example, when he brings along an unsuspecting Marine recruiter as he confronts congressmen, urging them to have their children enlist in the service. And he makes good use of candid footage, including an eerie video showing Bush practicing facial expressions before going live with his address to the nation about 9/11.
Apparently Bush and other members of his administration don't know what every TV reporter knows, that a satellite image can be live before they get the cue to start talking. That accounts for the quease-inducing footage of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wetting his pocket comb in his mouth before slicking back his hair. When that doesn't do it, he spits in his hand and wipes it down. If his mother is alive, I hope for his sake she doesn't see this film.
Such scenes are typical of vintage Moore, catching his subjects off guard. But his film grows steadily darker, and Moore largely disappears from it, as he focuses on people such as Lila Lipscomb, from Moore's hometown of Flint, Mich.; she reads a letter from her son, written days before he was killed in Iraq. It urges his family to work for Bush's defeat.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner. If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush's determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites.
The problem with the Patriot Act is that it doesn't require the government to tell the American people how it is/has been used. If there were abuses, we would never know about them because the Act doesnt require them to disclose what they are doing. Given the Administration's record on abusing its powers of detention (i.e. GITMO, Abu Garaib, Secret POW detainees) I am not quite ready to give them Patriot Act powers without accountability.- Can any of you find an example of someone having their rights abused by the Patriot Act?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests