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

[Elwood Blues]

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Show me where I did anything but *repeat* what Jason had already stated!

To quote Elwood Blues:

would you PLEASE stop talking about yourself in the third person?????

kbev must go now

 

[Elwood Blues]

Elwood is now pissed at K and PAW.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Truth
kbeverina,

On the flying the bin ladens when everyone else was grounded confusion, here is what Mike has said happened and he did a lousey of drawing the distinction in the film but if you know what happened you are able to follow it better but still it's sloppy editing at best and an opening for people to get the wrong idea at worse. It is very important that it be made very clear when points as important as this one are made.

ok 1. The bush 41 being grounded refers to the Day of 9/11 after the attacks when nothing was being allowe to take off.
This is too loosely tiesd to the fact that when bush and all these other people were grounded there were several flights that were allowed to take off and travel inside the United states and collect all the 140 Saudi people to a common point where as soon as flights out of the country were allowed they all took off together.

Personally it seems a point that has much less impact now that the truth has been revealed compared to before when the government admitted what was done and was denying anything about it. During the denial period people had known that planes had taken off for the express purpose of helping the bin ladens and other Saudis and it seems people assumed they were flown on out of the country then rather than being ferried to a collection point to await the reopening of the airspace.

Sorry but not with you here . what is " that " in
"wished that had been explored"

If it helps Truth makes no claim to know what, anyone let alone bush, thinks. It seems odd that a person that has said so many things that have been shown to be less than honest would have still have any credability with anyone.

But that's where Dissonance comes into play a lot.

From Richard Clarke--

Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who served as a principal source for conspiracy filmmaker Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," said this week that the central premise of the film is "a mistake."

In an interview with the Associated Press, Clarke took issue with Moore's criticism that President Bush allowed prominent Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's family, to fly out of the U.S. in the days after the 9/11 attacks.

Saying Moore's version of the episode has provoked "a tempest in a tea pot," Clarke called his decision to make the bin Laden family flyout a big part of the film's indictment against Bush "a mistake."

"After 9/11, I think the Saudis were perfectly justified ... in fearing the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country. When they asked to evacuate their citizens ... I thought it was a perfectly normal request," he explained.

In May, Clarke confessed that he and he alone made the decision to approve the flyouts.

"It didn’t get any higher than me,” he told The Hill newspaper. "On 9/11, 9/12 and 9/13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

Clarke told the 9/11 Commission the same thing in March, after first detailing the episode for Vanity Fair magazine last August - leaving plenty of time for Moore to adjust his film to the facts as recounted by his primary source.

Amazing how the truth will set one free.

 

[Geoff_M]

Great site for "reality testing" Moore's "facts": Fahrenheit Facts

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
From Richard Clarke-- Amazing how the truth will set one free.

I'm wondering when someone will set Truth free.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
I'm wondering when someone will set Truth free.

Wow, for someone who hasn't been here very long you sure are opinionated!

It's kind of like" The Passion of the Christ" movie. I didn't believe everything in that movie, but it didn't bother me if other people did, and liked it!

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Wow, for someone who hasn't been here very long you sure are opinionated!

It's a problem I have. It's called being blunt.

It's kind of like" The Passion of the Christ" movie. I didn't believe everything in that movie, but it didn't bother me if other people did, and liked it!

IMO, without even seeing F9/11 (but I did see The Passion and I'm NOT a religious person) there's much more truth (even without the special effects (MM's editing skills)) in The Passion than MM could ever possibly convey in F9/11.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
It's a problem I have. It's called being blunt.



IMO, without even seeing F9/11 (but I did see The Passion and I'm NOT a religious person) there's much more truth (even without the special effects (MM's editing skills)) in The Passion than MM could ever possibly convey in F9/11.

Yeah, I've got that same problem too.

Well, it could be considered a matter of opinion as to which is considered more truthful. To some people that consider Christianity to be based on mythology, The Passion may not be considered Truth.

 

[dmadman43]

Are we all that surprised there are factual problems with Moore's film? I mean, look at all the factual problems there were with "Columbine" and "Roger and Me". The guy does NOT make documentaries. He makes poorly edited (or well editied, depending on your viewpoint) movies that convey the message he wants the audience to hear. Nothing wrong with that. Every movie does that. Just don't pass it off as factual or a documentary.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Are we all that surprised there are factual problems with Moore's film? I mean, look at all the factual problems there were with "Columbine" and "Roger and Me". The guy does NOT make documentaries. He makes poorly edited (or well editied, depending on your viewpoint) movies that convey the message he wants the audience to hear. Nothing wrong with that. Every movie does that. Just don't pass it off as factual or a documentary.

The film critic, Roger Ebert, disagrees with your assertion that Moore's work does not meet the definition of a documentary.

Here's a link:

http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html

Here's what he says:

A reader writes:

"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

 

[Geoff_M]

Perhaps, but I think this "documentary" has more in common with "This Is Spinal Tap" than, say, the works of Edward R. Morrow.

"But this one goes to 9/11!"

 

[Truth]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
Perhaps, but I think this "documentary" has more in common with "This Is Spinal Tap" than, say, the works of Edward R. Morrow.

"But this one goes to 9/11!"

Like the " 11 " nod to tap, but not knowing which
of Morrow's works you refer to lets just say that as far as mike's film is concerned it has very little to do with 9/11.
A short one sentence description would be something like,
bush's pals the saudi's might have had something to do with 9/11.

If anyone is going to see mike's film hoping for answers to how 9/11 happened, they are probably going to be disappointed.

 

[septbride2002]

I just came back from seeing the movie and while I have not read all 8 pages of this thread here is what I took away from the movie:

1) The US media needs to do a better job then reporting what is popular. They even admitted several times that they were biased in their reporting. I wish for accurate, unbiased coverage of events. One of the moments of the movie that made me realize this fact is that they noted members of the Taliban (I belive) visited the Bush family in TX and only the British Press reported on it.

2) The last part of the movie when the representatives of various companies were talking about how they support the war effort and Bush, and then it cuts to speakers talking about the money to be made just made me sick to my stomach. I'm not saying that Bush had anything directly to do with that - what I am saying is that it goes to show how warped the values of wealthy CEO's are.

3) It was shocking to me to see how everyone was so interconnected. Friends of President Bush were put into positions of power.

4) I have to admit that Michael Moore had a really good point about letting the Bin Ladin family leave the country. I think it is disgraceful that our adminstration let them leave without so much as having the CIA or the FBI run an investigation on them. Maybe they wouldn't have gotten anything, and maybe they would have but now we will never know.

5) My husbad was very angry about the idea that the bills that are passed into laws are not throughly read. Now maybe the guy being interviewed was blowing things out of proportion - I don't know - but if it is true - then those people should be out of a job.

6) Being from the great state of Missouri I have to comment on the Mel Carnahan vs. John Ashcroft part of the film. Yes Carnahan won the election but with the reporting going on at that time I can also say many people gave a sympathy vote. However I will say that I voted for Canahan (even though he was dead) due to my dislike of Ashcroft. I was sad to see him get the promotion to Attorney General.

~Amanda

 

[Elwood Blues]

Well it looks like he tricked you into believing just what he wanted you to believe.

That everything he portrayed was true.

 

[Truth]

septbride2002,

How big was the crowd where you watched ?

Was there any group reaction at the end ?

Was it only showing on one screen ?

Had it been playing wher you saw it before last Friday ?

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by septbride2002
3) It was shocking to me to see how everyone was so interconnected. Friends of President Bush were put into positions of power.

4) I have to admit that Michael Moore had a really good point about letting the Bin Ladin family leave the country. I think it is disgraceful that our adminstration let them leave without so much as having the CIA or the FBI run an investigation on them. Maybe they wouldn't have gotten anything, and maybe they would have but now we will never know.

#3: I would exepect friends of the president to be put into power, wouldn't you? In the last administration they even had an acronym for it: FOB (Friend of Bill).

#4: The FBI definitely did have the chance to investigate the bin Laden relatives before they left the country. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know how he presented it. Did he come right out and say that the FBI never had a chance to talk to them? Did he just imply it?

 

[septbride2002]

Well it looks like he tricked you into believing just what he wanted you to believe.

I'm sorry but I am highly offended by your statement. I do not believe everything in that movie is true, nor did I once state that I thought Moore was right and Bush was wrong. Please go back and reread my post. Even my #5 I stated - I have no idea if this is true or not. I ask you to not put words into my mouth and also if you are going to be insulting to use facts instead of vague generalizations. There were alot of parts during the movie in which I rolled my eyes or thought "well that is probably blown out of proportion." I went and saw this movie taking it with a grain of salt. Did you?

To further state my case to you Mr/Ms Elwood Blue I read several reviews from both conservative and liberal points of views on this movie before attending it. I do not just take one side of any story and preach for it to be the truth. In other words maybe you should learn to not speak about things you know NOTHING about - and you obviously know nothing about me.

How big was the crowd where you watched ?

The theatre was about half full so lets say 40 people.

Was there any group reaction at the end ?

Majority of people applauded but to be honest most movies I see people here applaud at the end - so that may not be a big deal.

Was it only showing on one screen ?

Yes only one screen.

Had it been playing wher you saw it before last Friday ?

Not a clue!

#3: I would exepect friends of the president to be put into power, wouldn't you? In the last administration they even had an acronym for it: FOB (Friend of Bill).

#4: The FBI definitely did have the chance to investigate the bin Laden relatives before they left the country. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know how he presented it. Did he come right out and say that the FBI never had a chance to talk to them? Did he just imply it?

No I would not expect friends of the president to be put into power. And just to set the record straight I don't like the idea of Bill doing it either. People should be put into power that are the best person for the job. The one that will go above and beyond for the people of the USA. Not my buddy from high school, or a friend of mine of a board for a company I own. That is just BS. Maybe it is wishful thinking that I think it should be based on the best person for the job rather then the President's friends - but that is my belief.

The way it was presented is that the Bin Ladin families left the US on September 13th. There was an interview with a former FBI investigator (and I cannot remember if he recently retired or if they ever even mentioned it) stating that he thought it very odd that the family members of the most wanted man in America would be ushered out of the country so quickly.

~Amanda

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by septbride2002
I'm sorry but I am highly offended by your statement. I do not believe everything in that movie is true, nor did I once state that I thought Moore was right and Bush was wrong. Please go back and reread my post. Even my #5 I stated - I have no idea if this is true or not. I ask you to not put words into my mouth and also if you are going to be insulting to use facts instead of vague generalizations. There were alot of parts during the movie in which I rolled my eyes or thought "well that is probably blown out of proportion." I went and saw this movie taking it with a grain of salt. Did you?

To further state my case to you Mr/Ms Elwood Blue I read several reviews from both conservative and liberal points of views on this movie before attending it. I do not just take one side of any story and preach for it to be the truth. In other words maybe you should learn to not speak about things you know NOTHING about - and you obviously know nothing about me.

WOW, struck a nerve did I? Why so sensitive?

And I didn't put ANY words in your mouth.

MM has a track record of presenting distorted facts and half truths. IMO, that would make anything he presents suspect at the least.

I'm glad you went to "see for yourself" but even in your review you stated that you were shocked by some of the "facts" MM presented which are known to be false or (just almost as bad) taken out of context. I can only assume that you were shocked because you believe them to be true.

For me, I don't need to waste (nor contribute) my money to someone like MM. But that doesn't mean that I don't inform myself on both sides of the subjects he presents. Just like you say you do.

FYI, It's Mr. Elwood Blues.

 

[septbride2002]

Yes you did strike a nerve - I don't like it when people talk "down" to me which is how I took your original post. You just assumed that you knew exactly how/what I was feeling and then proceed to speak to me like a child. Yes that stikes a nerve and I won't appologize for it.

I'm glad you went to "see for yourself" but even in your review you stated that you were shocked by some of the "facts" MM presented which are known to be false or (just almost as bad) taken out of context. I can only assume that you were shocked because you believe them to be true.

Funny if you go back and read my post not once did I use the word "fact" In regards to finding things "shocking" the only part of my post that I said was shocking was

3) It was shocking to me to see how everyone was so interconnected. Friends of President Bush were put into positions of power.

If you have facts showing that Bush's friends were not put into positions of power please share them with me. Or if you can prove that Bush had no past relations with those that he promoted then please share that as well.

I find it interesting that you feel the need to form an opinion on something you have not seen. Yes you can read articles from both sides however I personally feel that one cannot form true opinion without actually seeing the movie. This is part of the reason I went to see the movie - I felt that I would be hypocritical to form an opinion on something that I had not even bothered to see.

And yes you did put words into my mouth by this statement:

That everything he portrayed was true.

I never said that and you projected in your post that I had.

~Amanda