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

[Geoff_M]

Saw the film today and was glad I did. The war is not about terrorism, not about 9/11, its not about freeing Iraq, its about money. (or oil, which translates to money eventually).

Lileks in a follow-up yesterday to his rebuttal to Moore's LA Times piece made this interesting observation:

A little clarification about yesterday’s screed – re Moore’s assertion that there was no Saddam / 9.11 connection, I posted this:

Mainly because I was tired and had no desire to go into a link-fest about the connections between the Ba’athist regime and terrorism. To me the picture speaks volumes: yea, and he was well pleased. I am somewhat disheartened that many people believe our entire foreign policy post-9.11 can be explained with murky conspiracy scenarios about oil and Saudis and oil and Saudi oil and Texans and oil and Saudis, but refuse to accept that the actual avowed enemies of the United States might have made common cause over the years.

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0704/070904.html

I'd be kinda nice if some people would give those that advocate an Iraqi-terrorism link HALF the benefit of the doubt that they give Moore's conspiracy theories.

 

[ThreeCircles]

OH MY GOSH!

That picture cements the deal! All bets are off now!

Of course there was an Iraq-9/11 link! Everything is justified now. Forget the stacked evidence against such a connection! Forget the deceptions produced by the w administration! Forget the conclusions of the 9/11 commission! Forget the fact that NO WMDs have been found (over a YEAR later)!

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Oh, I understand you completely. But I would hope that yours and my idea what is true (as long as we are looking at the same facts) is the same or we're all in big trouble. Where we might differ in opinion is whether we agree with the truth or disagree with it. But regardless, the thing we are discussing is still true.

For example, the war in Iraq. There's no getting around the truth that there was/is one. We can have differing opinions on whether we thought it was necessary or not.

And I'll ask again in general terms and not specifically the F911 movie but all of his previous works combined.

Do you believe everything that MM says to be true?

If not, what parts did he get wrong?

First, I can't speak to all of MM's film since I've not seen them all.

Second, when I do see a MM film, I don't go looking for "truth" or "facts." Even when I read newspapers, listen to NPR, or watch the evening news, I accept that these reports may only be giving a portion of the whole story, may be coming from a particular position, may be proven incorrect with new knowledge, etc.
I went to F911 to hear MM position, to see things that I haven't encountered in the news, to take a moment to reflect on the national and world situation. If this scares you or means we are all in "big trouble," so be it.

Again, I leave others to the minutia of fact checking and philosophers to debates about truth.

 

[faithinkarma]

I'd be kinda nice if some people would give those that advocate an Iraqi-terrorism link HALF the benefit of the doubt that they give Moore's conspiracy theories.

Tell me, when you say "people" are you refering to the "people" on the commission that investigated this and released their results saying there was no connection?

Wow, that Moore is one powerful dude, apparently he managed to snow even the republican committee members.

 

[Geoff_M]

Tell me, when you say "people" are you refering to the "people" on the commission that investigated this and released their results saying there was no connection?

If you can show where Lilek or I have claimed there's proof of such a connection, you might have a point. Lilek offered that photo to refute Moore's notion that Saddam's take-down had nothing to do with American self-defence. It is not a claim of his envolvement in 9/11. I don't believe the commission looked into the question of Saddam's material support of terrorist groups such as Hamas.

ThreeCircles, ironically the logic in your jest is percisely the kind of thought process that many of Moore's fans use in earnest to condemn Bush and buy into the whole "it's all about oil" conspiracy theory. Dittoes for the people that run around claiming that the Clintons run around bumping people off.

 

[ThreeCircles]

I wouldn't know. I can't speak for "many of Moore's fans" as you seem so ready to do.

Personally, I only feel comfortable in speaking for myself but to each his own, eh?

 

[faithinkarma]

I never said you claimed proof. What you asked for was the benefit of a doubt...I explained why I had none to offer.

 

[Geoff_M]

Sorry, but when did making an observation about a set of people (something in which you are well versed) become equated with "speaking for" them?

...but like you said "to each his own".

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
Sorry, but when did making an observation about a set of people (something in which you are well versed) become equated with "speaking for" them?

...but like you said "to each his own".

Well, you're ready to determine how they came up with their beliefs, are you not? Did you speak with each of them and ask them this question? If not, you would seem to be speaking for them.

 

[Geoff_M]

I never said you claimed proof. What you asked for was the benefit of a doubt...I explained why I had none to offer.

However, a governmental commission's findings are only a snapshot based on what is, and isn't, known at that time. At the risk of sounding like Oliver Stone, on more than one occassion new information has arisen after such bodies have released their "findings" that cast them in doubt or trigger their reversal. Sometimes no new information appears... however, you can't say that such pronouncements are "beyond the shadow of a doubt."

 

[Geoff_M]

Well, you're ready to determine how they came up with their beliefs, are you not?

I don't have to "determine" anything... it's laid to bare in any number of blogs, on-line communities, etc.

 

[faithinkarma]

well, the use of the term "beyond the shadow of a doubt" brings images of a trial to mind. So I will say that if I was on a jury I would vote "no connection" based on the evidence provided.

If you are trying to paint me into saying " no such proof will ever be found" well, that would be just plain stupid of me wouldn't it?

Is that all you want...an admission that one day I might be proven wrong? Then I offer that admission freely. But right now, today, with what is available, I believe not. And given that I do believe that much more damning information will be revealed when this committe finally gets around to its conclusion, I am comfortable taking this stance.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
I don't have to "determine" anything... it's laid to bare in any number of blogs, on-line communities, etc.

Please. Talk about back-tracking!

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by goofygirl
The American soldiers are dying for dollars. Dying so that Bush's rich oil buddies with investments can get richer.
What a disgrace.

Which ones would those be?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
Again, I leave others to the minutia of fact checking and philosophers to debates about truth.

So you really don't care if what you were watching was not the truth? Really?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Tell me, when you say "people" are you refering to the "people" on the commission that investigated this and released their results saying there was no connection?

Do you think President Clinton was lying when he said that Saddam and bin Laden had formed a collaborative relationship?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I wouldn't know.

Clearly.

You have a problem with Bush/the bin Laden family/Carlyle, but don't seem to have clue why.

Either that, or you know there's nothing naughty there and are blowing off the fact that you tried to say there was.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Clearly.

You have a problem with Bush/the bin Laden family/Carlyle, but don't seem to have clue why.

Either that, or you know there's nothing naughty there and are blowing off the fact that you tried to say there was.

Wow. Do you often take quotes out of context like that? You should apply at Faux News!

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Wow. Do you often take quotes out of context like that? You should apply at Faux News!

I knew I could get your attention if I employed a Michael Moore tactic, clipping out only part of something someone said.

How about answering the question? If you can.

 

[kbeverina]

And how about showing how those quotes link Saddam to 9/11.