Like most of you out there in hippyland, i saw ferenheit 9/11, and while the film was well made, i think that his assertions as to the links between the saudis and bush particular were a little strenous at best. I think he would have done much better with just documenting the connections between saudi arabia and american business as a whole, instead of just the bush family. Maybe talking about how saudi arabia is a major player in the world oil market and how we have pandered to them in the past, then talking aout their connections to terrorism and human rights abuses, and finally ariving on how we have overlooked them in the war on terror because of their influence abroad, instead focusing on rather weaker nations.
But of course Christopher Hitchens is infallible and is the singularly definitive guru of truth is that it, Huck? LOL. Speak the corporate line, whitewash abuses of office and maintain the status quo to keep those advertiser dollars rolling in and you somehow have a lock on truth in our great nation. Deluded sheep!
Hey Lick, Try including some actual content in your messages, rather than your usual sanctimonious and self-indulgent vitriol. For startes, tell me specifically what's wrong with Hitchen's review of Moore's sophomoric movie.
Tell you what, YOU give me your own factual evidence (with sources) of clear lies in Fahrenheit 911 (not the regurgitated polemic of Hitchens or Kopel for all their contrarian interest in providing little more than ad hominem attack on Moore and utterly decontextualised claims about what he actually says in the film) and Ill do the same for your article. To date, you and those of your ilk here have presented plenty of links to mainstream media which we all can see for ourselves any day of the week. As to your own substantive analysis, nada. Your post above is hardly any basis to attack me for lack of "content". LOL go stuff that in your ideological pipe and smoke it. Being the expert on that subject that you are, I leave the vitriol to you.
If you bothered to read the review, you'd see that it says plenty about the film itself (particularly its glaring omissions) and not just about Moore. Give me an example of a "decontextualised claim" in the review. Moore's movie contains plenty of these. Richard Clarke (no favorite of the Bush administration) has taken him to task for this.
I read the Hitchens piece, and it was - as most objections I've read to Fht 9-11 are - basically just a presentation of his opinion, and his alternative interpretation of facts. I keep waiting for the massive list of falsehoods the movie presents, and haven't seen much. I did see one article where the author took specific incidents in the movie and then did a "counterpoint" thing where he basically said "That's not true" without providing any factual information to prove that Moore was lying - I suppose we were supposed to take his word for it. Anyone who actually believes that the US is NOT protecting Saudi Arabia and pandering to it is a fool. Not because Georgie is friends with the royal Saudi family, but because the US is willing to overlook the vast MAJORITY of human rights violations, support for terrorists, and disgusting hoarding of oil wealth by the Saudi elite if it means that the US can continue to get cheap, easy access to their precious OIL. I don't need Michael Moore to tell me that. And I also don't need Moore to point out what a complete baffoon George Bush is, or the fact that we are being bamboozled by a bunch of ruling elite parasites. It's far too obvious.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was much like I thought it would be - a very well-made semi-documentary which is more humor than it is information. Nothing the movie presents is news to those who have been on a quest for the truth prior to this summer, when the movie was released. Moore's methods and attitude will always put some people off, I think. I personally find the guy to be pompous and perhaps slightly narcissistic, and I know many people do, regardless if they agree with Moore's politics. I also don't care for the way Moore panders and conforms to phony Democrat causes and issues. Did anyone catch him sitting with the Carters at the DNC? What a fucking joke! I think F9/11 could have been a lot better if Moore stuck to the facts rather than focusing so much on Bush's mental retardation and impoverished vocabulary, which is already apparent to anyone with more of a brain than Bush, which is pretty much everyone over the age of six. Anyway, there are several 9/11 documentaries out there that are far better and informative than Moore's dumbed-down political polemic. But sadly, most Americans can't be bothered to watch anything that doesn't constitute as entertainment. It would be too much work for them to exercise a few synapses and watch something with some real substance.
I enjoyed Farenhiet because it was refreshing to see some propaganda that I actually agreed with on many points. I believe that it was propaganda disguised as a documentary to engage in the just cause of keeping people from voting against Bush, but if it was a true documentery it would have obviously shown both sides of the story. One thing that he fails to mention - probably because this would make even more people call him 'unamerican' - is that the Bush administration wasn't the first American war started for greed, as we have been doing that since the War of 1812. Bush has simply been carying on an American tradition that has kept us so powerful. The reason it gets so much attention now is that the corruption is so damn obvious. Secondly, another thing he refused to bring up to keep up his own apperences is that American soldiers rarely fight for OUR freedom anymore. Not for 60 years. They fight out of loyalty to the USA, but our freedom? F-911 wasn't a deep, thought-provoking movie.It was Moore's pursuasive film to sway voters to fight for his just cause against the Bush Administration.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm Those that are incapable of even considering deceits in Farenheit 9/11 and intend to just blow off this entire article without having even bothered to read it, please save us your fake 'LOL's.
This is the list I was referring to previously. Many of the supposed "falsehoods" this author refers to are not supported by any more evidence than what Moore provides. In many other cases, the author is nitpicking - like where he accuses Moore of lying about a gas pipeline agreement in Afghanistan, then admits in the next point that the pipeline deal DOES exist, but a couple hundred miles away from where Moore said. Big deal. In still other cases, he makes claims that are simply his opinion, and that are disputed by various individuals and organizations - such as where he claims that Afghanistan has been "liberated" from the Taliban (not mentioning that it has, instead, been turned over to warlords who are apparently gang-raping women for sport). Calling Moore a "liar" because he disputes that the attacks on Afghanistan have been a success is ridiculous. Finally, sure, there are some cases where Moore used "artistic license" - like using footage from one political rally when he was talking about a different one. The overall picture this film presents, however, is hardly up for debate. There is no excuse for George Bush's disgusting behavior. And it is pathetic to watch people like this author scrambling to pick apart F 9/11 in a desperate attempt to make Bush look good. It ain't gonna work. If he didn't want us to know what a jackass he was, he shouldn't have been so obvious about it.
And this is the sort of flippant response I was referring to. Its amazing that you would say it is "pathetic to watch people like this author scrambling to pick apart F 9/11 in a desperate attempt to make Bush look good" yet the article contains Amazon links to highly critical books the author recommends such as "The Bush Betrayal" and "All the President's Spin". As usual, anyone that criticises Moore has to be painted as some sort of extremist, so that most people in the forum won't bother to read the material backing it up. There is NO pipeline being built ANYWHERE in Afghanistan, as the article clearly states, and which you would know if you had read it. So Moore said Unocal was building a pipeline, and in fact not only is Unocal not building it, not only has Unocal specifically said they have no interest in EVER building it, but nobody else is building it either. And you call this "nitpicking"? How low is the standard you apply to Moore? He also said Karzai worked for Unocal which is false. He says Gore would have won "under any scenario". This is patently false. His suggestion that Fox dicatated that Bush won and the other networks fell in line is false. His suggestion that Saudi's own 7% of America is completely unsupportable. It said Bush was on vacation 43% of his first 8 months as President. The calculation includes weekends, and as the footage clearly shows it included him meeting Tony Blair. Do you strive for this level of honesty in your posts? Moore quotes Condoleeza Rice as saying ...but leaves out ...is this your idea of honest? Of course I could go on, but you could just give flippant responses to the rest of it too. Why bother?
