Farenheit: 9/11: a waste of my time

[cracked]

I got a bootlegged copy of F9/11 on DVD and just wasted an hour of my time watching the first part. Like so many anti-Bushies felt after watching the film, I'm quite angry.

 

Several sections of the first section made me suspicious, so I paused the ficumentary and checked up on the facts, not the Moore falsehoods, on www.bowlingfortruth.com . Since every one of Moore's 'damning' points is happily debunked, I realized that there is no reason whatsoever to waste more of my time of this piece of fiction. Anyone who believes anything in that film without researching the facts really should, because having an informed perspective is important, right? I am absolutely staggered that some people believe Moore so willingly, yet ridicule conservative sources, that, while less than perfect, are nowhere near as deceptive as Moore's garbage.

 

Fiction that poses as a documentary. Deliberate misrepresentation rampant. Relying on emotion rather than facts. What an utter piece of garbage. D-

 

Moore should stick to his talents: producing entertaining films and overeating. I'm sure he'd do a great job with Shrek 3.

[cj001f]

Watch "The Fog of War"

 

Both Fairweather and I agree it's good (how's that for Bipartisan?)

[dukiebird]

Michael Moore is not what anyone would call an unbaised reporter, but he has good points, occasionally. Fog of War is a much more objective look at (kinda) the same thing.

[Fairweather]

I do agree. Great documentary/interview with McNamera. While I admire the guy's spark...(he's f*ing sharp for 85 years old!)...a lot of his answers fall into the CYA category. The film, and McNamera, really provide some clearification/closure regarding The Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, and certain other aspects of The Cold War in general. The guy makes no apologies, but frankly admits that mistakes do happen...and he is guilty of making a few. Takes kind of a "that's just the way it is" attitude.

 

 

Some of the Johnson Administration tapes played in the film do seem to vindicate McNamera and place the Vietnam escalation directly upon Johnson himself. And McNamera's frank admission that both Lemay and he, along with others, would be considered war criminals for their roles in the firebombing of Japanese cities was sobering. He understands....the winner gets to write history.

[cj001f]

Fog of War is a much more objective look at (kinda) the same thing.

Fog of War is MORE objective, I wouldn't call it objective. It's intended as Macnamara's legacy (and he was a giant, no bone's about it!)

[foraker]

But you have to admit, there are less than objective sources regardless of your political bent and that both sides will quote them quite often. Very often, people will tell me I need to 'get myself informed' (be they right or left) and then point me at some source with an incredibly obvious agenda.

[cj001f]

I do agree. Great documentary/interview with McNamera. While I admire the guy's spark...(he's f*ing sharp for 85 years old!)...a lot of his answers fall into the CYA category. The film, and McNamera, really provide some clearification/closure regarding The Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, and certain other aspects of The Cold War in general. The guy makes no apologies, but frankly admits that mistakes do happen...and he is guilty of making a few. Takes kind of a "that's just the way it is" attitude.

 

Agreed. It's a film of an 85 year old trying to stake his place in history. I can't help but wish we had people of his smarts, and with the same ability he had, to make their mark on the world.

 

On an entirely different note: as an engineer watch the shockwaves from the bombs and be amazed

[cracked]

But you have to admit, there are less than objective sources regardless of your political bent and that both sides will quote them quite often. Very often, people will tell me I need to 'get myself informed' (be they right or left) and then point me at some source with an incredibly obvious agenda.

I think what really bugs me about Moore is that he tries to cloak his agenda. His deliberate and insidious methods of getting people to agree with him piss me off. Watch the thing in the theatre, and you can't pause the movie to check the facts. He relies on the trust of people, and then manupulates them. And that, I cannot stand.

[willstrickland]

Cracked, if you want a source laden, heavily researched critique on the current administration, go read through some of http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

 

Josh Marshall is left of center, I'd call him a centrist dem. His readership tends to be more left than he is. Guy writes for TNR, Atlantic, Washington Monthly, and other heavy periodicals. I have noticed his tone becoming more and more partisan in the last few months...regardless, his blog is one of the better informed, connected, and researched pieces of commentary on the web. He also tends to do quite a bit of media coverage analysis.

 

Check it out, while keeping in mind that he is something of a dem.

[Lionel_Hutz]

I think what really bugs me about Moore is that he tries to cloak his agenda. His deliberate and insidious methods of getting people to agree with him piss me off. Watch the thing in the theatre, and you can't pause the movie to check the facts. He relies on the trust of people, and then manupulates them. And that, I cannot stand.

 

Yeah, MM is really secretive about his 'agenda'...

I heard he really didn't like George Bush and wants him out of the white house, but, shhhhhh, that's a secret.

 

I agree that F911 is pretty much a piece of junk, but MM's manipulation of facts and abuse of trust is no different than GWB's.

[Jim]

I think the basic premise of the move, that we were lied to, that Bush is as sharp as a fern, and that the war was for political reasons and not necessary stands up pretty well. The scene with Bush continuing to read "The Little Goat" for close to 10 min after he's been told we're under attack is priceless. No one was telling him what to do, so he did nothing.

[dberdinka]

I commend Moore for including real footage of the horrors of war in Iraq. Footage of both Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. It's a shame and disgrace that the major media networks refuse to show the reality of what is going on over there.

 

How do you debunk the tragedy of Iraqi civilians and young American soldiers being blown to bits over there?

[Jim]

You've brought up a major point on how the US population percieves the war. They get little information on it! Oh yea, something like "Explosion rocks Baghdad, 4 soilders wonded". With no concept that they just lost arms and legs. Nor do we hear about the more than 700 Iraqis who died - just in Baghdad last month. Ya know, it's just a little messy war that's mostly out of sight. The place is a mess, and we've had the major hand in it.

[cracked]

I think the basic premise of the move, that we were lied to, that Bush is as sharp as a fern, and that the war was for political reasons and not necessary stands up pretty well. The scene with Bush continuing to read "The Little Goat" for close to 10 min after he's been told we're under attack is priceless. No one was telling him what to do, so he did nothing.

You can interpret his reaction in plenty of different ways.

 

Moore loses all his credibility by not telling the truth. He is, of course, very careful not to actually lie, but he misrepresents, he hides the other side of each story, he insinuates. Yet liberals don't care that their reasons to hate Bush don't exist. And that amazes me.

 

Enjoy your daily dose of propaganda....how's the view with your head in the sand?

[Jim]

I think the basic premise of the move, that we were lied to, that Bush is as sharp as a fern, and that the war was for political reasons and not necessary stands up pretty well. The scene with Bush continuing to read "The Little Goat" for close to 10 min after he's been told we're under attack is priceless. No one was telling him what to do, so he did nothing.

You can interpret his reaction in plenty of different ways.

 

Oh that's rich!

[rbw1966]

Where is the dishonesty in the portrayal of Bush's inaction in the classroom? He sat on his ass looking stupid. I don't see any misrepresentation there.

 

I went to that bowling for truth website you cited and its loaded with innuendo as well. I hope you enjoyed your dose of propoganda as well.

[Jim]

on that. The site doesn't "disprove" anything.

[j_b]

Do you care to substantiate any of your criticisms of F9/11? I mean, if what you are saying is as obvious as you claim, you should not have any trouble providing specific examples, no? We'll be waiting anxiously to read what you come up with ....

[cj001f]

Moore loses all his credibility by not telling the truth. He is, of course, very careful not to actually lie, but he misrepresents, he hides the other side of each story, he insinuates. Yet liberals don't care that their reasons to hate Bush don't exist. And that amazes me.

 

Enjoy your daily dose of propaganda....how's the view with your head in the sand?

 

Submit "limbaugh" for Moore and your statement's true. They are both windbags.

[dberdinka]

I think the basic premise of the move, that we were lied to, that Bush is as sharp as a fern, and that the war was for political reasons and not necessary stands up pretty well. The scene with Bush continuing to read "The Little Goat" for close to 10 min after he's been told we're under attack is priceless. No one was telling him what to do, so he did nothing.

You can interpret his reaction in plenty of different ways.

 

please, Please, PLEASE! share with us your interpretation of GW's reaction. PLEASE!

 

"If I don't finishing reading "Little Goat eats a Tulip" the terrorists will have won"

[j_b]

Submit "limbaugh" for Moore and your statement's true. They are both windbags.

 

hell no! moore is partisan but he does not lie.

[cracked]

Do you care to substantiate any of your criticisms of F9/11? I mean, if what you are saying is as obvious as you claim, you should not have any trouble providing specific examples, no? We'll be waiting anxiously to read what you come up with ....

 

One of the most obvious: Moore claims/insinuates that 'Bush flew the bin Laden family out of the US', when, in reality, it was Richard Clarke's decision. Clark admits this here. And now Clarke is a Bush critic.

 

On Bush and Bandar (I assume you know what part of the film I'm talking about here):

 

Moore points out the distressingly close relationship between Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family. But Moore does not explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan Washington power broker for decades, and that Bill Clinton repeatedly relied on Bandar to advance Clinton’s own Middle East agenda. (Elsa Walsh, The Prince. How the Saudi Ambassador became Washington's indispensable operator, The New Yorker, Mar. 24, 2003.)

Or is it OK for ol' Bill but not for GWB? It's not black and white like Moore paints it.

 

How about Moore's claim that Bush's cousin John Ellis fixed the election through his position at Fox News? Bullshit. (If you don't like the slant of bowlingfortruth, go to his sources. I know you won't like Ann Coulter, but it's hard to argue facts.)

 

I could go on and on, but it's not worth it. Do some research if you really care, all the information is out there.

[cracked]

Submit "limbaugh" for Moore and your statement's true. They are both windbags.

 

hell no! moore is partisan but he does not lie.

[Jim]

The Coulter piece is nothing but opinion. Moore states that fact of who was in charge at Fox News to make the call, and in his opinion it was done in an effort to influence the outcome. Hellooo - this is Fox News. I'm shocked, shocked at this revelation.

 

Sorry dude, no facts presented yet to counter those put forth by Moore. Just the conservative spin on the facts.

[rbw1966]

Cracked, you seem to do exactly what Moore does: amass amounts of propoganda and innuendo in defense of your own position. I don't see how this makes you any more ethical than Moore.

 

Clark only admitted his mistake after the film was made. Regardless of who made the decision to fly the saud family out of the US, it happened under Bush's watch.

 

Why you inject CLinton into this discussion is disingenuous. We are talking Bush and Moore here, not Clinton.