If you've seen Fahrenheit 9/11, ask & discuss it here.

[Elwood Blues]

nice work as usual KB.

 

[rcyannacci]

OK. So I’ve been reading this thread and have been hesitant to jump in mainly because the minutia of fact checking has my head spinning. I’ll leave others to this debate. Personally, I expect all documentaries to have a bias, just as I accept that all history books are written from certain social/economic/political positions with attending biases. Facts are created, not discovered. Processes of interpretation that lead to fact creation can’t been done in a political vacuum. Every generation writes the history it needs. MM is just one individual writing a version of current events, and it remains to be seen how this version will influence future generations.

But here is something that I know will stick with me from the film. I thought the choice at the beginning of the 9/11 section to darken the screen and have the audience only hear the event as it was taking place was amazingly poignant and powerful. We’ve all seen the footage of those planes crashing into the WTC so many times that is was almost as if our retinas burned that image into the blank screen. As I sat in my seat hearing the screams, the sirens, the commentary from people on the street in NYC, I was taken back to my emotions on that day, remembering my disbelief and horror, remembering that I imagined how my own body would feel if it fell from a building. At this moment, I was taken back to a time before people started pointing fingers and throwing blame and remembered this tragedy. Whatever political position you might have or however much you might hate MM, this filmic moment serves as a memorial to those lost to us on that day.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
OK. So I’ve been reading this thread and have been hesitant to jump in mainly because the minutia of fact checking has my head spinning. I’ll leave others to this debate. Personally, I expect all documentaries to have a bias, just as I accept that all history books are written from certain social/economic/political positions with attending biases. Facts are created, not discovered. Processes of interpretation that lead to fact creation can’t been done in a political vacuum. Every generation writes the history it needs. MM is just one individual writing a version of current events, and it remains to be seen how this version will influence future generations.

I'm sorry but I have to really disagree with this. Fact are not created. They just are. It's a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. It wasn't created. It was discovered. Now try and spin something like that into a MM movie.

Opinions are created. Hopefully for them to have any validity, they're based on facts. Some opinions don't need facts. Things that are subjective to personal preference (like color, or taste, or who's you favorite president). But if you ask who the best president was/is, you can base your opinion on fact or "feeling". Facts of record are hard to dispute unless they become untrue through further discovery of previously unknown facts.

You can have the opinion that the war in Iraq was unnecessary and you don't need facts to uphold that opinion.

You can have the opinion that the war in Iraq was unsuccessful (did it meet it's objective?) but you'd better be prepared to provide facts to back it up, otherwise that opinion is pretty meaningless.

People say that can have any opinion they want. True, but if you are looking for some credibility, you'd better have some facts to back it up.

 

[Chernabog70]

FNC Reveals How Moore Distorted Scene with Bush at Golf Course
MRC ^ | 7/1/04 | Brent Baker

The TV ads for Michael Moore's "documentary" Fahrenheit 9/11 feature a mocking
clip of President Bush on a golf course. Bush declares, "I call upon all
nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorists killers," and then
Moore jumps to Bush adding, as he prepares to swing at a golf ball, "now watch
this drive." Tuesday night on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson
noted how "the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is
talking about al-Qaeda terrorists." But Wilson disclosed that "a check of the
raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel,
carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber."

Indeed, Wilson played another part of what Bush said in the remarks to
reporters made on August 4, 2002: "For the sake of the Israelis who are under
attack, we must stop the terror."

MRC analyst Megan McCormack noticed Wilson's correction of Moore in a piece in
which Wilson outlined how Moore's movie better matches the definition of
"Propaganda" than "documentary."

"The American Heritage Dictionary," Wilson relayed, "defines a documentary film
as one that presents facts quote, 'objectively without editorializing or
inserting fictional matter.'"

After documenting Moore's distortion of Bush's golf course comments, Wilson
moved on to how "in his film, Moore claims that special flights carrying Saudi
nationals were allowed to fly within the US at a time when commercial
aircraft were grounded due to the 9/11 attacks. Not true. The Saudi flights did
not occur until after commercial flight restrictions were lifted on September
14th. Newsweek's top investigative reporter Michael Isikoff took Moore to task
on that and other incorrect claims in a recent column, and says of the movie:

Michael Isikoff: "It's one window into some of the facts, but it's certainly
not a complete window into all the facts."

Wilson: "Even some news organizations providing clips to Moore for the film
argue Fahrenheit 9/11 is not balanced. Bill Wheatley, a Vice President of NBC
News, told the LA Times quote, '...the work of filmmakers is much more likely
to be pointed in a particular direction...filmmakers tend to avoid balance and
pursue a point of view.' So if the word documentary really doesn't fit Michael
Moore's film, how about this description? 'Ideas, facts, or allegations spread
deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.' That's how
the dictionary defines the word propaganda. In Washington, Brian Wilson, Fox
News."

Last Friday night, June 25, the NBC Nightly News ran a fact check on Moore's
movie, the MRC's Brad Wilmouth observed, and found it wanting. NBC's Lisa Myers
didn't note how the golf course comments were suggested to be about al-Qaeda
when they were really about Palestinian terrorists, but she did call it a
"cheap shot."

She began her story with a clip of an ad for the movie: "A true story that will
make your temperature rise."

Myers asked: "But how true is it? The film's sometimes embarrassing video of
Bush administration officials is authentic [clip of Ashcroft singing], though
some argue certain shots amount to cheap shots." George W. Bush from movie, on
golf course: "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these
terrorist killers. Thank you. Now, watch this drive."

Myers: "The powerful story of Lyla Lipscomb, whose son was killed in Iraq, is
also undeniable. But on other key points, critics say this so-called
Documentary is either wrong or deliberately misleading. The war in Iraq: To
drive home the point that the children of the powerful aren't dying in Iraq,
Moore ambushes politicians on Capitol Hill."

Moore in movie: "Congressman, I'm Michael Moore. How are you doing?"

Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN): "Good evening."

Moore: "Good, good. I'm trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to
enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."

Myers: "But Moore left out what Congressman Mark Kennedy went on to say."

Kennedy, in interview with NBC: "My nephew had just gotten called up into
service and was told he's heading to Afghanistan. He didn't like that answer,
so he didn't include it."

Myers: "Bush and the Saudis: The film traces ties between the Bush family and
the bin Laden and Saudi royal families, then suggests the Bushes, quote, 'might
be thinking about what's best for the Saudis instead of what's best for you.'"

Roger Cressey, terrorism expert: "The Bush family's relationship with the bin
Ladens and the Saudis had nothing to do with our decisions on the war on
terrorism. To say so is simply unfair."

Myers: "Finally, Saudi flights after 9/11: The film suggests that plane loads
of Saudis, including the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the US after
9/11 without proper vetting. However, the 9/11 Commission says, 'Nobody was
allowed to depart who the FBI wanted to interview.' One character in this film
suggests that President Bush is even worse than Osama bin Laden, one of the
excesses and distortions that may undermine the credibility of Michael Moore's
message. Lisa Myers, NBC News, Washington."

 

[Eeyore1954]

It is interesting how more and more "discrepancies" between the film and the truth keep being exposed. And yet, the film continues to be touted as "factual." Makes me wonder what sort of definition of the word "factual" is being used here.

Thanks, Chernabog70, for posting this. Interesting read.

 

[wvrevy]

This is from Michael Moore's own website regarding these flights. Since most of you didn't bother to see the movie before criticizing it, I'm sure you won't bother to read this either, but it's worth a shot
----------------------------------

WHY WE SAY IT:

1. THE FLIGHTS - WHO GOT OUT WHEN

The facts stated in Fahrenheit 9/11 are well documented and are based entirely on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12

Unfortunately, some news organizations have misinterpreted what the film says. Some have said Fahrenheit 9/11 alleges that these flights out of the country took place when commercial airplanes were still grounded. The film does not say this. The film states clearly that these flights left after September 13 (the day the FAA began to slowly lift the ban on air traffic).

2. WHO APPROVED THESE FLIGHTS AND WHY

We really do not know why it was so necessary for the White House to allow the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and "the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged," according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.

We do know who asked for help in getting Saudis out of the country - the Saudi government. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12 The film also includes a television interview with Saudi Prince Bandar, confirming this as well.

Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has testified that he approved these flights, stating that "it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.

3. DID THESE INDIVIDUALS GET SPECIAL TREATMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT?

Yes, according to Jack Cloonan, a former senior agent on the joint FBI-CIA Al-Qaeda task force, who is interviewed in Fahrenheit 9/11. Cloonan raises questions about the type of investigation to which these individuals were subjected, finding it highly unusual that in light of the seriousness of the attack on 9/11, bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the country and escape without anyone getting their statements on record in any kind of formal proceeding, and with little more than a brief interview.

Most Saudis who left were not interviewed at all by the FBI. In fact, of the 142 Saudis on these flights, only 30 were interviewed. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12

The film puts this in perspective. Imagine President Clinton facilitating the exit of members of the McVeigh family out of the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. Or compare this treatment to the hundreds of people detained following the 9/11 attacks who were held without charges for months on end, who had no relationship to Osama bin Laden.

The question, which has never been answered, is what was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country? As Cloonan says, ""If I had to inconvenience a member of the bin Laden family with a subpoena or a Grand Jury, do you think I'd lose any sleep over it? Not for a minute Mike... [Y]ou got a lawyer? Fine. Counselor? Fine. Mr. Bin Laden, this is why I'm asking you, it's not because I think that you're anything. I just want to ask you the questions that I would anybody."

4. ADDITIONAL FACTS NOT REPORTED IN FAHRENHEIT 9/11 THAT SUPPORT THE FILM'S THESIS

First, the US Customs and Border Protection document released by the Department of Homeland Security under the FOIA, Feb 24, 2004 lists 162 Saudi Nationals who flew out of the country between 9.11.2001 and 9.15.2001.

Second, even though Fahrenheit does not make the allegation, on June 9, 2004, news reports confirmed that, "Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left. The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky. The Saudis then took another flight out of the country."

Moreover, "For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose... The terrorism panel, better known as the 9/11 Commission, said in April that it knew of six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, that left the United States between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001. But it has said nothing about the Tampa flight… The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight.

"Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights." Jean Heller, TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly.
St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004

 

[faithinkarma]

Myers: "Finally, Saudi flights after 9/11: The film suggests that plane loads
of Saudis, including the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the US after
9/11 without proper vetting. However, the 9/11 Commission says, 'Nobody was
allowed to depart who the FBI wanted to interview.' One character in this film
suggests that President Bush is even worse than Osama bin Laden, one of the
excesses and distortions that may undermine the credibility of Michael Moore's
message. Lisa Myers, NBC News, Washington."


In fact, the 9/11 commission said that in their preliminary report.....and since that preliminary report, they have requested more information about these flights to make a proper determination.

I'm sorry but I have to really disagree with this. Fact are not created.

Would that apply to facts about WMDs?.....how about facts about the "ties" between bin Laden and Hussein?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Just thought I would share a comic from our local newspaper this morning...

$61,118,488 and counting!

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Would that apply to facts about WMDs?.....how about facts about the "ties" between bin Laden and Hussein?

No one ever said there were direct ties between bin Ladan and Hussein. There is ample evidence that Saddam supported and harbored Al-Queda terrorists. Not sure how you want to define ties. If you allow criminals to hide out in your house do you have "ties" to them? Well, the law would say you do.

As for WMD.. Hmmmm Of couse this will be dimissed I'm sure. Iraq was getting ready to build nuclear power plants, right? Doesn't means a thing, right. But, but but, where are the weapons???? They said weapons!!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...ith_u_s__departments_of_energy_and_defense145

"U.S. Removes Iraqi Nuclear and Radiological Materials; Joint Operation Conducted with U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense"

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
This is from Michael Moore's own website regarding these flights. Since most of you didn't bother to see the movie before criticizing it, I'm sure you won't bother to read this either, but it's worth a shot
----------------------------------

WHY WE SAY IT:

1. THE FLIGHTS - WHO GOT OUT WHEN

The facts stated in Fahrenheit 9/11 are well documented and are based entirely on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12

Unfortunately, some news organizations have misinterpreted what the film says. Some have said Fahrenheit 9/11 alleges that these flights out of the country took place when commercial airplanes were still grounded. The film does not say this. The film states clearly that these flights left after September 13 (the day the FAA began to slowly lift the ban on air traffic).

2. WHO APPROVED THESE FLIGHTS AND WHY

We really do not know why it was so necessary for the White House to allow the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and "the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged," according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.

We do know who asked for help in getting Saudis out of the country - the Saudi government. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12 The film also includes a television interview with Saudi Prince Bandar, confirming this as well.

Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has testified that he approved these flights, stating that "it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.

3. DID THESE INDIVIDUALS GET SPECIAL TREATMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT?

Yes, according to Jack Cloonan, a former senior agent on the joint FBI-CIA Al-Qaeda task force, who is interviewed in Fahrenheit 9/11. Cloonan raises questions about the type of investigation to which these individuals were subjected, finding it highly unusual that in light of the seriousness of the attack on 9/11, bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the country and escape without anyone getting their statements on record in any kind of formal proceeding, and with little more than a brief interview.

Most Saudis who left were not interviewed at all by the FBI. In fact, of the 142 Saudis on these flights, only 30 were interviewed. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12

The film puts this in perspective. Imagine President Clinton facilitating the exit of members of the McVeigh family out of the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. Or compare this treatment to the hundreds of people detained following the 9/11 attacks who were held without charges for months on end, who had no relationship to Osama bin Laden.

The question, which has never been answered, is what was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country? As Cloonan says, ""If I had to inconvenience a member of the bin Laden family with a subpoena or a Grand Jury, do you think I'd lose any sleep over it? Not for a minute Mike... [Y]ou got a lawyer? Fine. Counselor? Fine. Mr. Bin Laden, this is why I'm asking you, it's not because I think that you're anything. I just want to ask you the questions that I would anybody."

4. ADDITIONAL FACTS NOT REPORTED IN FAHRENHEIT 9/11 THAT SUPPORT THE FILM'S THESIS

First, the US Customs and Border Protection document released by the Department of Homeland Security under the FOIA, Feb 24, 2004 lists 162 Saudi Nationals who flew out of the country between 9.11.2001 and 9.15.2001.

Second, even though Fahrenheit does not make the allegation, on June 9, 2004, news reports confirmed that, "Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left. The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky. The Saudis then took another flight out of the country."

Moreover, "For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose... The terrorism panel, better known as the 9/11 Commission, said in April that it knew of six chartered flights with 142 people aboard, mostly Saudis, that left the United States between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001. But it has said nothing about the Tampa flight… The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI, appears concerned with the handling of the Tampa flight.

"Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights." Jean Heller, TIA now verifies flight of Saudis; The government has long denied that two days after the 9/11 attacks, the three were allowed to fly.
St. Petersburg Times, June 9, 2004

Why is Moore having to explain "facts" that should have been presented very clearly in the movie? Since when do documentaries require the author to explain what he was trying to present as facts? As a reasearcher Moore clearly has skills on the junior high school level. If this had been a research paper he likely would have gotten a D-

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Why is Moore having to explain "facts" that should have been presented very clearly in the movie? Since when do documentaries require the author to explain what he was trying to present as facts? As a reasearcher Moore clearly has skills on the junior high school level. If this had been a research paper he likely would have gotten a D-

Since when does it need clarification ? Since the republican attack dogs started making things up about it, that's about when The FACTS aren't in dispute here, just Moore's interpretation of what those facts mean. The flights DID take place, just as he asserts...Did they take place for sinister reasons ? That's conjecture.

The funny thing about all this is, nobody can dispute the basic facts that Moore shows in his movie. Call it a cheap shot, call it misleading, whatever you want (though, mentioning Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence every 3 minutes is apparently ok )....But at least they ARE facts. Bush DID say the line "...now watch this drive" after talking about terrorists. I couldn't care less if he was referring to Al Queda or Hamas or the IRA...He still comes off looking like a fool for making such a light comment after discussing such a dark subject.

You're perfectly within your rights to critique his methods or question his motives...But unless you can back it up, you've got no right to sit there and say he was lying.

Oh, and about those Iraq / Al-Queda ties...Seems the 9/11 commission meant what it said, despite Cheney's insistance on spinning it otherwise:

9/11 Commission Registers Disagreement With White House

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
I'm sorry but I have to really disagree with this. Fact are not created. They just are. It's a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. It wasn't created. It was discovered. Now try and spin something like that into a MM movie.

Opinions are created. Hopefully for them to have any validity, they're based on facts. Some opinions don't need facts. Things that are subjective to personal preference (like color, or taste, or who's you favorite president). But if you ask who the best president was/is, you can base your opinion on fact or "feeling". Facts of record are hard to dispute unless they become untrue through further discovery of previously unknown facts.

You can have the opinion that the war in Iraq was unnecessary and you don't need facts to uphold that opinion.

You can have the opinion that the war in Iraq was unsuccessful (did it meet it's objective?) but you'd better be prepared to provide facts to back it up, otherwise that opinion is pretty meaningless.

People say that can have any opinion they want. True, but if you are looking for some credibility, you'd better have some facts to back it up.

I'm going to guess that we'll just disagree on this, but I'll respond in a few areas.

First, I don't want to dispute something defined as scientific fact (the earth rotates around the sun), mainly because I'm not a scientist. These type of facts are never in a stable state, however, because new discoveries are continually being made. I also think it is difficult to compare this type of "fact" with those about various social or political issues, such as the war in Iraq.

Yes, if people want to have credibility, they need to back on their version of events. Not all facts are equal. I personally don't see the difference between "unnecessary" and "unsuccessful"- both terms can have multiple definitions depending on the context in which someone is using them. And one fact can have multiple meanings.

For example, WMD's. We can learn from CNN that no WMD have been found in Iraq. Someone who is against the war might use this as proof that Bush misled the nation, that we've fought an unnecessary war, that we've been unsuccessful with our mission. Some who supports the war can use this information differently- we haven't found WMD's yet so this doesn't give us any substantive proof. Or, they will discount WMD's all together- this is no longer a relevant fact, other things matter more.

The history of this war will be written differently from both sides. Our "shock and awe" campaign that brought "victory" in Baghdad will be a day of mourning for those who lost families. "Enduring Freedom" won't translate as easily as some think it will. Indeed, to this day you can find some people in the South who will refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Agression. One person might claim the Columbus discovered America, and someone else will tell you that he led the conquest of the Americas.

I understand why MM is being vilified (and I'm sure he does as well). He's purposfully working on explosive political subjects because he wants to increase debate in America, to shock people out of thier complacency. A democracy needs active participants, citizens willing to engage in political issues in an effort to continually make thier communities better. And, artists (painters, musicians, playwrights, filmmakers) have always been in the position of raising awareness and provoking debate. In ancient Greece, playwrights were among the most celebrated citizens because they wrote tragedies that challenged Athenians to continually question the moral obligations of thier citizenship. Shakespeare's history plays ask very tough questions of civic leadership. Now, of course, we look at these figures as artistic masters, beyond reproach. But I guarentee you that there were audience members at the Globe Theater saying "Shakespeare? That hack? What does he know about anything? He's got his facts all wrong because I'm sure Henry IV never said that. Forget this! Other people can waste their money, but I'm going to the Rose to see a comedy."

 

[Joeblack]

rcyannacci:

What a great Post!!!

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Joeblack
rcyannacci:

What a great Post!!!

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by wvrevy
This is from Michael Moore's own website regarding these flights. Since most of you didn't bother to see the movie before criticizing it, I'm sure you won't bother to read this either, but it's worth a shot

I didn't see the movie, and I understand perfectly what went on regarding the "bin Laden" flights. But if you actually read this thread, you'll see that the people that are confused are the ones that saw the movie.

So I take that to mean that if you want to understand what actually went on, you should not see the movie, you should visit the website. That's a helluva endorsement for the movie, no? I'll be sure to rush right out and see it.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
I understand why MM is being vilified (and I'm sure he does as well). He's purposfully working on explosive political subjects because he wants to increase debate in America, to shock people out of thier complacency. A democracy needs active participants, citizens willing to engage in political issues in an effort to continually make thier communities better. And, artists (painters, musicians, playwrights, filmmakers) have always been in the position of raising awareness and provoking debate. In ancient Greece, playwrights were among the most celebrated citizens because they wrote tragedies that challenged Athenians to continually question the moral obligations of thier citizenship. Shakespeare's history plays ask very tough questions of civic leadership. Now, of course, we look at these figures as artistic masters, beyond reproach. But I guarentee you that there were audience members at the Globe Theater saying "Shakespeare? That hack? What does he know about anything? He's got his facts all wrong because I'm sure Henry IV never said that. Forget this! Other people can waste their money, but I'm going to the Rose to see a comedy."

I disagree that MM wants to increase debate. Like any propagandist, he simply wants as many people as possible to believe what he says and/or disbelieve what his subjects say. I also disagree that MM is remotely an "artist" in the vein of Shakespeare or virtually anybody else you can name. Somewhere last century "art" and "politics" somehow became synonomous......that as long as someone was making enough noise about something political, that it was obviously art even if it was terrible.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Since when does it need clarification ? Since the republican attack dogs started making things up about it, that's about when The FACTS aren't in dispute here, just Moore's interpretation of what those facts mean. The flights DID take place, just as he asserts...Did they take place for sinister reasons ? That's conjecture.

The funny thing about all this is, nobody can dispute the basic facts that Moore shows in his movie. Call it a cheap shot, call it misleading, whatever you want (though, mentioning Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence every 3 minutes is apparently ok )....But at least they ARE facts. Bush DID say the line "...now watch this drive" after talking about terrorists. I couldn't care less if he was referring to Al Queda or Hamas or the IRA...He still comes off looking like a fool for making such a light comment after discussing such a dark subject.

You're perfectly within your rights to critique his methods or question his motives...But unless you can back it up, you've got no right to sit there and say he was lying.

Oh, and about those Iraq / Al-Queda ties...Seems the 9/11 commission meant what it said, despite Cheney's insistance on spinning it otherwise:

9/11 Commission Registers Disagreement With White House

To paraphrase a famous perjurer, I guess it all depends on your definition of "lies". My point remains, if it were indeed a documentary there should be no need for MM to have to go back and explain the Saudi ferrying issue, as the facts should have been PLAINLY presented in the "documentary". I, personally, have never accused him of "lying" (by definition). I accuse him of juryrigging incidents to present them as "facts." (see:Heston speech in "Bowling for Columbine").

As for the 9/11 commission, I'll reserve my opinion of them for another thread.

 

[dmadman43]

I understand why MM is being vilified (and I'm sure he does as well). He's purposfully working on explosive political subjects because he wants to increase debate in America, to shock people out of thier complacency. A democracy needs active participants, citizens willing to engage in political issues in an effort to continually make thier communities better. And, artists (painters, musicians, playwrights, filmmakers) have always been in the position of raising awareness and provoking debate. In ancient Greece, playwrights were among the most celebrated citizens because they wrote tragedies that challenged Athenians to continually question the moral obligations of thier citizenship. Shakespeare's history plays ask very tough questions of civic leadership. Now, of course, we look at these figures as artistic masters, beyond reproach. But I guarentee you that there were audience members at the Globe Theater saying "Shakespeare? That hack? What does he know about anything? He's got his facts all wrong because I'm sure Henry IV never said that. Forget this! Other people can waste their money, but I'm going to the Rose to see a comedy."

I'll defer to the Shakespear scholars, but did Shakespeare intend any of his historical plays to be "documentaries", or were they written purely for entertainment purposes?

 

[wvrevy]

If the people criticizing the film had actually seen it and paid attention, Moore wouldn't have to explain himself. Unfortunately, so many people are buying what the Bush spin team is selling that Moore felt compelled to explain himself to those that apparently weren't paying attention. The movie clearly states that the flights left after 9/13...but he keeps getting attacked on that issue as if it didn't say any such thing. The facts are there for all to see....Unless they've made up their minds without bothering to see it for themselves. I mean...why bother getting the evidence when you can just depend on the White House to make up your mind for you, right ?

And yeah, I'd duck that 9/11 commission thing too, if I were you

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I'll defer to the Shakespear scholars, but did Shakespeare intend any of his historical plays to be "documentaries", or were they written purely for entertainment purposes?

Gulliver's Travels was written as political commentary, despite the fact that it was taken (at the time) for "entertainment purposes"...Why can't something be both ?