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

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by Jimbo
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.

Exactly.

 

[kbeverina]

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.

You are completely brushing aside the major point of objections to this movie. It doesn't matter if Moore was technically correct when he says:

"At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial plans carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country."

What matters is that when people watch this segment, they are given the impression that the flights were allowed to leave while others were still grounded. How many people remember the exact date the ban was lifted?

The thing is, I don't even have to argue that this is the impression he gives--the proof is in the other postings and the articles written by the press. It is indeed what he conveys.

And to dismiss those who walked away with that impression as not paying attention--that's just disingenuous. I read the transcript and you would have to know that the flight ban was lifted the 14th to even stand a chance of not walking away with that impression.

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.

This is completely untrue. I've already disputed facts. I could cite plenty more with little effort--just read the links already posted. Where do I begin? I could just start quoting from them. And did you get the part where the clip of him golfing had been edited? Big chunks cut out? He didn't just recite that line and then ask them to watch his drive. Clearly Moore wants you to think that, but that's not how it happened.

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.

He lied in this movie. I've already noted some. I'm more than happy to bore you with more links if you'd like.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
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

I was once again willing to give you a pass on this one. But when you bring it up again, I'm going to ask again.

Why won't you respond to the question I posed on the other thread regarding this?

Didn't you admit on the other thread that Bush didn't fabricate the link between al Qaeda and Saddam? That this had been alleged for years?

As for the article posted--what you failed to explain is that the disagreement refers not to al Qaeda/Iraq ties, but to whether or not the commission had access to all of the intel that the administration did. That, we just don't know. Cheney says they didn't, the commission says they did.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by 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.

Do you really believe this? Really?

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.

The movie does clearly state that the flights left after 9/13. Does the movie ever state that the flight ban had been lifted? Why not? And if Moore never intended for people to think it hadn't, why even put this in the movie?

You're actually arguing here that the flights left when it was legal for them to leave. So what was the point of putting that in the movie?

What's funny is Moore now being in the position of having to put out statements that there wasn't actually any bad behavior going on, his movie didn't say that.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Well, apparently they WEREN'T paying attention, because the film very clearly states that they left the country after September 13th, not September 11th. Why did they get that wrong ? I don't know, you'd have to ask them.

Because the movie never says that the restrictions were eased on 9/14.

The film asserts that several domestic flights were made - during the flight ban - to round up these Saudis, and that is without question a fact. It states that they were taken, on chartered flights, out of the country following September 13th. That, too, is without question a fact. What is so hard to understand about that ? Yes, Moore implies sinister motive behind that, and that is certainly debateable. But the facts are NOT in question. Period.

I'm not sure this is true. I can't find that in the transcripts. Was this mentioned in the same segment?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by jason
I'm pretty sure when you said a terrorist is a terrorist my point was pretty clear, but I'll answer your 2 questions again. #1 When I originally saw the movie I thought that W. was talking about terrorist. Question #2 I thought Bush was talking about terrorist.

Okay, jason, not sure why you asked me was al Qaeda not terrorists then.

You can insert my own thoughts for me again if yoiu wish.

Well, I did that, jason, and then you got mad.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Ahhh... Not only does he define what is art and what is not but he purports to "know" an individual through the exchange of messages on an internet discussion board!

Oh, baloney.

Hitting the back button on all of the comments you directed toward Galahad.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Did you miss my post to you? I'll repeat it:

What are you saying he lied about? That there was no collaborative relationship? That there are longstanding links between Saddam and al Qaeda?

I am not the one saying it: Did you even glance at the news article provided?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Sept. 11 commission, which reported no collaborative links between Iraq and al Qaeda, said on Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney had no more information than commission investigators to support his later assertions to the contrary.

in case you missed it again THE SEPT 11 COMMISSION, WHICH REPORTED NO COLLABORATIVE LINKS BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QAEDA

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5601245


what part of "no collaborative links" remains unclear to you?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by faithinkarma

what part of "no collaborative links" remains unclear to you?

What was it again that the 9/11 commission was investigating?

IMO, "no collaborative links" in a report by the 9/11 commission means that there wasn't any in the context of the 9/11 attack planning.

But that sure doesn't mean that there were no ties whatsoever between Iraq and Al-Queda which has clearly been shown to be true.

 

[Joeblack]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I'm sorry, I see nothing in that desciption that suggests "The Fog of War" is about "9/11" What am I missing?

I thought you were of the idea that 9-11 was one of the main reasons for the Iraq war. If you bother to watch the movie, you will see the link between the two scenarios. One of the director's motives for the film (watch his acceptance speech) was to make people aware of the dark times the world has fallen into because of repeating the same mistakes.

Do watch the movie. I guarantee you will like it. It is not a "lib" movie.

 

[Joeblack]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
What was it again that the 9/11 commission was investigating?

IMO, "no collaborative links" in a report by the 9/11 commission means that there wasn't any in the context of the 9/11 attack planning.

But that sure doesn't mean that there were no ties whatsoever between Iraq and Al-Queda which has clearly been shown to be true.

And were those ties reason enough to launch a war with thousands of dead people? If so, then it is more than reason enough to denounce the (proven) Bush-Bin Laden ties or the Republicans' (proven) simpathy for Hussein back in the 80's in a movie, don't you think? At least no one will end up dead with the movie.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blsaddamrumsfeld.htm

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Joeblack
At least no one will end up dead with the movie.

Don't bet on it! I fear that if I walked into a MM movie, a good 1/3 of the people on this thread would suffer at least a massive coronary with some not able to recover.

And I doubt I'd last the entire film without having a brain aneurysm from having to wrestle with all the deceit. I'd rather not risk my life on a film.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
What was it again that the 9/11 commission was investigating?

IMO, "no collaborative links" in a report by the 9/11 commission means that there wasn't any in the context of the 9/11 attack planning.

But that sure doesn't mean that there were no ties whatsoever between Iraq and Al-Queda which has clearly been shown to be true.

And until I am provided with more than your opinion backing up this assertion I will go with what the 9/11 commission said. As they said it, minus your qualification. Because they did say it without any qualification did they not? Surely if they had intended to qualify it, they would have. Why leave themselves open to the inevitable criticism otherwise?


Joeblack,
Your cartoon brings to mind something I have been pondering. What if, just suppose, America had not won the cold war. What if Russia was still a powerful country. What if they were attacked and not the US. How farfetched is it to think they would condemn the US for having armed the terrorists not so long ago? would they have been justified in attacking the US?

 

[Galahad]

Because they did say it without any qualification did they not?

Don't know. Have you read the report or a news story about the report? Last round of news about the report was wildly incomplete. Also, is this another interim "staff report" or the report signed by the commissioners?

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by Galahad
Now that is interesting (and I know really OT). Obviously I don't think I adhere to your expansive view of art. You could take the next step and call ALL human activity art and get REALLY pedantic about it. But your mention of "following certain aesthetic rules" is interesting. Said another way....are you suggesting that if communication itself is effective then that communication is "art"?

Feel free to move this to another thread...........preferably one that isn't political....

Thanks I've always wanted to be pedantic; that's a huge complement to a girl who grew up in the sticks

Yes, I realize that my "expansive" definition of art can produce some dramatic eye rolls. My only defense is that it developed as a way to provoke interest in students who feel that art is irrelevant. If it makes you feel any better, my tastes in art run fairly conservative (maybe that's a place to start a new thread).

Do I think communication is art? Well...not really. I mean, I could argue that position if I included the performance of everyday life as art. But that takes it a bit far for me.

 

[dmadman43]

And until I am provided with more than your opinion backing up this assertion I will go with what the 9/11 commission said. As they said it, minus your qualification. Because they did say it without any qualification did they not? Surely if they had intended to qualify it, they would have. Why leave themselves open to the inevitable criticism otherwise?

Because that wasn't their scope. Their scope was to investigate the issues surrounding 9/11 specifically. They were chartered with investigating terrorism organizations and the links those groups my have with other organizations. So, the 9/11 drew the same conclusion the administration had been saying all along: there was no directly link between Al-Queda, Iraq, AND 9/11

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
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 ?

That's fine. But, was Gulliver's Travels intended to be a documentary. That's my issues with MM's films. He positions them as documentaries and some gullible people go to them think that's what they will be seeing.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by dmadman43
That's fine. But, was Gulliver's Travels intended to be a documentary. That's my issues with MM's films. He positions them as documentaries and some gullible people go to them think that's what they will be seeing.

Here we go again...

I keep hearing this argument over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, (and that's just from dmadman) but, for all intents and purposes, the movie still fits the definition of a documentary.

Unless, of course, dmadman is now the sole authority on what get called a documentary as Galahad seems to be the sole authority on what is called "art."

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Joeblack
He probably intended them for entertainment purposes AND to convey a message. Many artists have. Orson Welles comes to mind, and as much as he was attacked in his time, Citizen Kane remains one of the best and most influential films of all time.

Michael Moore might argue that Shakespeare wanted to question moral civic obligations or maybe even spark government change. Far-right winged "Slate" might argue that Michael Moore is lying because Shakespeare only wanted people to laugh or cry. Only Shakespeare and each one of the viewers of his plays will know what effect it had on him/her. What effect will Fahrenheit 911 have on November election? We'll see, but in film history, 2004 might become a landmark year when movie making became a politically influential media capable of regime change.

That's fine. Then Moore should say, and Hollywood should acknowledge his films are political hatchet jobs, NOT documentaries.

And, you cannot be serious about Slate. Far-right winged? Believe me, working for the company that funds Slate, and knowing people that work in that division, I can tell you for SURE it is not far-right winged.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
That's fine. But, was Gulliver's Travels intended to be a documentary. That's my issues with MM's films. He positions them as documentaries and some gullible people go to them think that's what they will be seeing.

At one time, something like 50% of the country thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11, largely due to the fact that the administration continuously mentioned the two in the same sentence for months leading up to the invasion.....


....so yeah, I know what you mean about "gullible people"