FAHRENHEIT 9/11

[Brandon]

Well, I just got back from a midnight showing, and the place was absolutely packed. There were some pretty big reactions from the audience -- 99% of whom I can only assume were anti-Bush to begin with (I think the 3 Republicans in attendance got up and left).

My own opinion? It's tremendously entertaining, engrossing, thought-provoking, and downright hilarious in spots. I think everyone should see it, if for nothing else than to be challenged and presented with some crucial information that is frequently overlooked in the mainstream press. (People who actually follow politics closely probably won't find out anything new, though. BUSH AND THE SAUDIS ARE TIGHT? YA DON'T SAY!)

However, I recognize the movie for what it is: propaganda. It's not an intelligent, open-minded look at our current state of government and foreign relations -- it's an angry polemic. Its central thesis (which I agree with) is that George W. Bush and his administration are very, very dangerous and incompetent and should be removed from power immediately. Moore goes to every length to prove it.

The problem is that the film gets away from itself until it reaches a point where Bush-hatred seems to be the only solid principle. It seems that Moore will take any position so long as it puts him on the opposite side of Bush. He bemoans the small number of troops in Afghanistan at one moment, then calls the whole war an unneccesary fraud the next. I left the theater feeling like I defintely got my money's worth, charged up to vote for Kerry come November, but a little confused. The movie definitely did a good job with its critique, but I had no sense of where its moral center was -- on what it based its critique.

Yeah, it's sloppy. Yeah, it's one-sided. See it anyway. Even if you hate Moore, you're going to be entertained. Bush and company as the Bonanza cast is just too funny to miss.

[mburbank]

I will see it for sure, I'm not bothered that it's polemical and a propoganda piece (the word has acquired negative conotation that it doesn't necessarily deserve) since Moore makes no claims it isn't. hating it for being polemic is like hating a western becuase it isn't science fiction.

It's already provided the world with the footage of W telling the press about the dangers of terrorism and following up by saying "Now watch this drive" and hitting a golf ball. No one who wasn't totally out of touch with reality could engage in such cognative dissonance.

Along similar lines, does anyone know if there;s footage of Chenney saying 'fuck' to Patrick Leahy?

[Brandon]

I will see it for sure, I'm not bothered that it's polemical and a propoganda piece (the word has acquired negative conotation that it doesn't necessarily deserve) since Moore makes no claims it isn't. hating it for being polemic is like hating a western becuase it isn't science fiction.
I probably wouldn't resent it for being a polemic so much if it was arguing against Bush from a more defined moral center. Instead, you get the idea that Moore is just ripping Bush for any old reason -- even if the reason comes from a POV that Moore would normally resent. Sometimes the objections he raises in the movie even contradict themselves, such as in dealing with the troop number issue in the Afghanistan war.

Moore just gets too carried away to be truly taken seriously, which is a problem Bowling for Columbine suffered in its closing moments. For example, he, at one point, introduces us to the "sovereign nation of Iraq" in his faux-naive narrator voice. To illustrate Saddam's Iraq, he shows a wedding, children in a playground, and people just hangin' out and shootin' the breeze.

Never mind that this sovereign nation had a shitload of U.N. sanctions placed on it. Never mind that Saddam had a.. well, less than admirable human rights record. It's like he's so determined to portray the Bushies as black-hearted scoundrels in every single way that he was willing to portray Iraq under Saddam as a benign, innocent victim. Even your average shmuck knows that isn't true. There's a way of criticizing the war that doesn't make Hussein into a martyr.

[AChimp]

Moore is a master of satire. He knows that Saddam wasn't one of the good guys, but the point that he's trying to get across is that there was no need to invade Iraq.

Your average schmuck doesn't have the intelligence to read between the lines, or only sees things in black and white (like our good buddies Vinth and Ronnie).

[kellychaos]

Although I know that he has good intentions, I have a hard time taking Moore seriolusly anymore and, really, I'm getting tired of his glib, smug, "holier than thou" attitude. I appreciate a balanced account of things and it's hard to respect his films when even he does not claim that this is a documentary so much as an op/ed piece. How relevant can it really be?

[Brandon]

Moore is a master of satire. He knows that Saddam wasn't one of the good guys, but the point that he's trying to get across is that there was no need to invade Iraq.
Oh, he definitely makes the point that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, but if you're looking for an admission -- bluntly stated or in subtext -- that Saddam Hussein was anything other than an innocent, benign victim, you're not going to find it in this movie. I'm really not lying or overreacting; it's truly that extreme. Moore says, point blank: "Iraq had never threatened us."

I will see it for sure, I'm not bothered that it's polemical and a propoganda piece
As I already said, I'm not bothered by polemics, provided they're done tastefully, but propaganda does bother me. Propaganda is never respectable -- even when it is for your side. And, now that I think about it, this movie definitely veers a little closer to propaganda than it does to polemic.

It's already provided the world with the footage of W telling the press about the dangers of terrorism and following up by saying "Now watch this drive" and hitting a golf ball. No one who wasn't totally out of touch with reality could engage in such cognative dissonance.
See, of all the things you could hang Bush with (and this movie has quite a few good ones), that one seems the most stupid. I mean, if you interview a president on a golf course, he's going to be (duh) playing golf. If Clinton did it, people would be cooing over his charm. I don't really see that part as "proof" that Bush doesn't give a fuck about the threat of terrorism.

[ScruU2wice]

See, of all the things you could hang Bush with (and this movie has quite a few good ones), that one seems the most stupid. I mean, if you interview a president on a golf course, he's going to be (duh) playing golf. If Clinton did it, people would be cooing over his charm. I don't really see that part as "proof" that Bush doesn't give a fuck about the threat of terrorism

Yeah that's one of the things that kinda annoyed me and people obviously think it's the funniest. I mean he's outside playing golf and being haggled by reporters. What is he suppose to do after someone asks him that sit there for hours and plan a defense measure against terrorism, on the golf course?

I do agree Bush has done some bad things, but that does not make him a bad human being. I was totally convinced when I heard of this movie that he's going to try to make Bush look like the Anti-Christ.

[ranxer]

I haven't seen the movie but i'm prepared to be disappointed.
I'm guessing that moore doesn't talk much about the complicity of this administration in 9/11 which is a huge subject and could expose a tremendous number of scoundrels.

the other thing i'm ready to be pissed about the movie is the idea that the bush administration is incompetent. It's a lie that will take a long time to die. I'm of the camp that believes that most of the problems they have created were not mistakes but on purpose.. escallation of hatreds, quagmire in iraq, increase in al-qaeda recruitments, this was all predicted and i'm betting that they banked on these for most of these problems actually MAKE MORE MONEY for the Military Industrial Complex. the administration doesnt really care if 'democracy' takes root in the middle east, the financial paybacks to bush supporters have already happened.. it could all fall apart and the folks that were in the know already ran out the back door with thier piles of money.
and we're left with instabilities that seem to require more investment in military.. perfect for those fascists that reap the profits of conflict. bush could be hung out to dry and still make money via the trifecta ties. fuck.. moore didn't seem to address any of this in the reviews i've read.. i'll see the movie and do what i can with its exposure of complicity but i'm still disappointed already :/

[kellychaos]

You're an idiot.

[The Retro Kat]

Scru and I just saw this movie. I generally didn't like it. It took really stupid points and blew them out of proportion. For some reason Moore made a big deal about Bush sticking around in that classroom for 7 WHOLE MINUTES. Oh shit son. I would have done the same fucking thing. Then Moore was trying to read his mind and be funny about it, but he was just a cunt. He said Bush stuck around for all the pictures, he wasnt even fucking smiling. He looked pissed and was contemplating what to do, same thing anyone of us would do. And Moore was sloppy and all over the place. Im a democrat, and I don't really care for the republicans in office, but Moore is just a downright, bitchy tool.

[Perndog]

The liberals in this city (read: everyone in this city) are absolutely fucking rabid about this movie. Last night, it was impossible to see *any* movie at a theater that was showing Fahrenheit 9/11 because the lines were so long. Everyone around here thinks Michael Moore is the most profound, heroic, champion of justice and righteousness in America. My neighbors freshman year had several friends over watched Bowling for Columbine on six consecutive nights.

I'll see the movie eventually. Right now the idiotic hype is completely turning me off.

And I still think Moore is a boorish, tactless jackass and am prepared to agree with The Retro Kat's comments on this one.

[Supafly345]

I will see it eventually, but probably not in the theatre. I am curious on what makes Michael Moore the unquestionable profound expert on Bushwhacking. It always seems like he just wants to convince himself into hating Bush further.

[Sethomas]

I saw this Friday night. It was actually undertaken much better than I was expecting. Woo.

[GAsux]

I have not yet seen the movie. Just the endless worthless television hype. But I can imagine the sensationalism involved and it makes me sad because I think Moore will marginalize the valid points to be made against the Bush Administration by documenting his comments while playing golf, telling stories of families who changed their minds about the war AFTER the sons/daughters where killed in it (um, duh....), etc.

I'm sure there will be tons of hip anti-establishment 18-23 year olds wearing Anti-Flag shirts who will absolutely love this movie. It's a shame that in my opinion it adds little to the worthwhile debate on the subject that Moore is claiming to want to provoke.

[Emu]

You're entirely right except for the last part. I don't think hardly any people at the theater other than myself and my friends was under 25 years old.

[Brandon]

I'm sure there will be tons of hip anti-establishment 18-23 year olds wearing Anti-Flag shirts who will absolutely love this movie. It's a shame that in my opinion it adds little to the worthwhile debate on the subject that Moore is claiming to want to provoke.
Well, that was definitely the case at the screening I went to.

[ScruU2wice]

I thought the movie was worth seeing though it didn't really change my point of view on anything. I thought some of the footage was golden, though.

Moore was fixated on Bush stealing the election of 2000. He even blamed gore for accepting that he lost. However, Moore can't get over it...

I didn't think that the scene with bush sitting around the elementary school during 9/11 was effective because 1) he looked really really concerned and 2) He lost so much focus drawing as many connections to the bushes and the bin laden's as possible. He says that the bin laden family was in cahoots with Osama but the only evidence he gives is that an undisclosed number of people of his vastly enormous family met for wedding. Woopty doo, Weddings are held only in the most malicious intent. Moore worded things really subjectivly like when he mentions bush's tax cuts and reduction in welfare, he made it sound like bush was doing this specifically to vetrans, eventhough conservatives in general are for less welfare and more taxcuts.

Moore, however, did make a good point that it wouldn't be too far outta the realm of possibily, and probably a good idea. The part of this i didn't like was when he said that Saudia Arabia was in bad standings with Anmesty international but than showed iraq as a happy playground with wendings, kites, and ferris wheels. I really felt like Moore was grasping at straws anytime he mentioned the Saudi's.

A big thing i noticed was that Moore started out by villifying the soldiers and showing them in killing stage and how they listen to ozzfest cd's when they kill innocent people. but than he switches to Glorifying the soldiers who really are the boys from back home.

The biggest problem i had with the movie was that people of the administration had to be "on" at all times. They couldn't be humans, because moore would point out every little thing to make it look like that they didn't care. I mean it's not like Bush wasn't allowed to laugh at all, ever after 9/11. Every little thing was used against him to make it look like he didn't care.

I do agree with alot of what he said but it's just easier to remember all the stuff that i disagree with. It kicked down a bit at the end and just kinda had a 20/20 feel, but that weird encounter with the lady who said that the war was staged kinda broke the flow and made it bit more exciting.

The propoganda was really obivous towards the end. Between the wounded soldier saying hes gonna become a democrat when he gets home and the dying soldiers wish not to get bush reelected.

:/

[GAsux]

See that's sort of what I was getting at. I think there are so many valid criticisms with relatively easily defended premises to challenge the administration on.

To pick out things like the bin Laden connection, soldiers behavior, and Bush's personal actions really belittles the argument. bin Laden's family has about 3,000 people in it. Letting his family leave, who a vast majority of Usama bin Laden experts agree have virtually no influence and little contact with him is really not a big deal. That's like letting O.J.'s mom go home after he killed Nicole. The psychology of soldiers on combat is another matter entirely. I'm quite sure there are plenty of people that are fucked up over there for all sorts of reasons. I'm sure it happens in even the noblest of wars. To degrage troops in that fashion, particularly when you cannot possibly fathom what thier lives must be like yourself is just cheap. And like Scru mentioned, I'm sure that Bush is allowed to laugh, joke, etc. He might be a moron with bad taste in the appropriateness of comments, but what does that have to do with a worthwhile national discussion?

Why not challenge the administration on the CIA? Was the information they got flat out wrong meaning the nations intelligence gathering bodies are failing, or did they simply manipulate the facts? What was the long term post war plan in Iraq and how could it have been so misguided? What drove the decision to abandon Afghanistan for the second time in as many decades to pursue Iraq? Why is there virtually no accountability for multi-million dollar contracts in the effort to rebuild Iraq, particularly when the bulk of it is being divied up by a company with close ties to members of the administration?

There are plenty of high brow, worthwhile disucssions to have. Again without seeing the movie, it is my impression that Moore misses 90% of them.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

To pick out things like the bin Laden connection, soldiers behavior, and Bush's personal actions really belittles the argument. bin Laden's family has about 3,000 people in it. Letting his family leave, who a vast majority of Usama bin Laden experts agree have virtually no influence and little contact with him is really not a big deal. That's like letting O.J.'s mom go home after he killed Nicole.

No, it's in fact absolutely nothing like that at all. 3,000 Americans had just been murdered. The United States of America had been attacked. Like Moore says in the film, I don't care if we have to inconvenience a few members of the Bin Laden family, you fucking do it. This is not a tiny point, I think it's in fact one of the strongest arguments he makes in the film.

However, he neglected to mention, even though he had the ability to edit it in, that Richard Clarke takes the credit for giving the green light on this. He actually went on record with The Hill as saying that it went no higher than him, and that he'd do it again. Sloppy, Michael.

I saw the film Friday night, and I'm pretty "eh" about the whole thing. I think the film is less controversial than Bowling for Columbine was in the claims that it makes. I guess that was part of the problem, the film sort of jumps all over the place, and in the end it sounds like he's advocating something between "I don't know" and global socialist revolution. Other than that, I walked away with the impression that Michael Moore apparently dislikes President Bush. Gasp!

I had a few problems with it, which I think have already been enumerated in this thread. The douche bag troops with their killing soundtrack, etc., was very unfair. He probably interviewed dozens and dozens of soldiers, and we'll never know how many gave relatively tame responses.

The images of children playing and "life as normal" in Iraq got to me at first, but then I heard a relatively solid counter-argument to that. We all understand that Iraq was a bad, miserable place. This has been the general public outlook since the first Gulf War. I think the point Moore was trying to make is that despite what we tend to think of Iraq, there was still life and vibrance in this country we were about to bomb. Again, the whole bit, with the bombs hitting as the girl goes down the slide, was really pushing it, and bugged me.

Anyway, the film certainly didn't "inspire" me, but it also didn't suck. I didn't learn anything from it, and I'm not quite as fired up about it as some are.

The one thing I like however is the public debate this has started. If you told me in 2001 that Moore would release a film demonizing the president, calling him out on his connections, and that it would do well (!), I'd say you were crazy. I went out to dinner last night, and I heard two different tables debating the film. As someone who often doubts this silly little democracy that we have, these sounds are a good thing.

Other people who need to be grateful to Moore are documentarians. If you look at the top 5 grossing documentaries of all time, four of them are from the past 5 years or so. #3 on that list, Super Size Me, just came out this year. Moore has made it profitable to be in the business of making documentaries, which used to get very, very tiny distribution, but will now probably get spit out in high volumes by the big boys.....

[ScruU2wice]

One of the big things I agreed with was the whole questioning the Bin laden family part. If they new something than it would be crucial info, and if they didn't than they can be off on there merry way. However I don't agree with the connections that he draws that since some of them met for a wedding means that they all work together.

I'm sticking by my theory that deep down inside that the administration didn't want to find Osama because he was an awesome scape goat for the many mistakes they made.

The movie contradicted itself at times. By first interviewing dousche bag soldiers and following the asshole marine recuiters, than flipping the page and making the soldiers look like angels weilding the swords of righteousness. Anmesty international frowns on Saudia Arabia and it's human rights record but Iraq is playground. The bush administration cuts back on Counter-terrorism, eventhouhg moore prooves that bush gains money by increasing defense.

However the movie made me feel a little bit smarter, because i already new most this stuff and all the kids my age are like "murder the government!"

:(

[ranxer]

The images of children playing and "life as normal" in Iraq got to me at first, but then I heard a relatively solid counter-argument to that. We all understand that Iraq was a bad, miserable place. This has been the general public outlook since the first Gulf War. I think the point Moore was trying to make is that despite what we tend to think of Iraq, there was still life and vibrance in this country we were about to bomb. Again, the whole bit, with the bombs hitting as the girl goes down the slide, was really pushing it, and bugged me.

i still havnt seen it but i'm venturing a guess that moore could be showing the viewers that Iraqi's are human beings not too unlike us..to counter that the right wing would have us believe they sit around burning american flags and plotting dirty nuke attacks.
Iraq, last i heard is 55% children under 15yrs old. and some people on the right are talking about nuking them still.. just insane.

maybe some of us are too left to really enjoy the movie but i'm psyched that it's getting a 97% recommendation and blowing predictions out of the water.. i hope it comes to my town so i don't have to waste gas travelling to see it. [/quote]

[conus]

Iraq, last i heard is 55% children under 15yrs old. and some people on the right are talking about nuking them still.. just insane.

Yes, but those children have dark skin and speak another language. There wasn't much public outcry when when several thousand Panamanians wound up as "collateral damage" when the U.S. invaded that country to capture their errant crony Manuel Norriega. A big percentage of them were children, as well. How do you think the American public would have responded had Norriega been hiding in Sweden, and had the children killed by U.S. airstrikes had blonde hair and blue eyes?

[El Blanco]

Would it be anything like the responses to the air strikes in Bosnia?

Please, can we put away the bullshit racism card? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that it doesn't apply in this case.

I know America is the new Nazi strong hold, but I get a little tired of hearing it.

[punkgrrrlie10]

Iraq, last i heard is 55% children under 15yrs old. and some people on the right are talking about nuking them still.. just insane.

Yes, but those children have dark skin and speak another language. There wasn't much public outcry when when several thousand Panamanians wound up as "collateral damage" when the U.S. invaded that country to capture their errant crony Manuel Norriega. A big percentage of them were children, as well. How do you think the American public would have responded had Norriega been hiding in Sweden, and had the children killed by U.S. airstrikes had blonde hair and blue eyes?

I find the age comments interesting. Alot of these kids are not their numeric age and are just as efficient at killing than people twice their age. I don't think their "color" has anything to do with it. I've seen pictures with soldiers gunning down a 9 year old but they don't show you the 6 people that 9 year old just gunned down. Sometimes I think the lefties put sympathy over survival which is just wrong. You gotta balance your sympathy with some common sense some times.

I am probably going to wait for video on this one. Mostly b/c I am broke but also because I think Moore is extremely far gone and sometimes his logic jumps leaps and bounds to make a point rather than sticking to facts and making a reasonbable interpretation of them, ie. the infamous golf course scene. But I am glad it is fueling the younger crowd to be more politically involved no matter what side they take.

[AChimp]

Kids with guns count as enemy combatants, end of story. They made a movie with Samuel L. Jackson about that, I think...

[conus]

Sometimes I think the lefties put sympathy over survival which is just wrong. You gotta balance your sympathy with some common sense some times.

Kids with guns count as enemy combatants, end of story.

My point was that the thousands of children killed by American airstrikes in both Panama and Iraq were not combatants. They were unarmed civilians. But the above quotes say a lot. If you invade someone's village and a child tries to defend it, gun him down.

[Brandon]

conus = mesobe

[Perndog]

I agree.

[AChimp]

If you invade someone's village and a child tries to defend it, gun him down.
Yeah. Duh. He's trying to gun you down. :rolleyes

[conus]

Yeah. Duh. He's trying to gun you down.

Interesting pronoun choice. Not long after the war began I heard one of my neighbors say, "We're really kickin' their ass," although neither he nor I were kicking anyone's ass. In truth we were standing in his front yard. I just took his statement to mean, "I'm really not a middle-class wimp! You can tell by what I like on TV!"

[ranxer]

oh man, kids with guns? give me a break. the throngs of people that surrounded the americans that i know that visited iraq had no weapons.. ive yet to hear anything about 9 to 15 year olds with guns in iraq. i'm willing to admit that maybe 1 to 5% of those 55% children have guns available by some means but again i know several people that spent weeks there and never saw one.

sad that americans are so quick to treat them as combatants.

id say it has something to do with racism.. its much easier to judge these people if we assume they are all hating zealots.

the folks i know were treated to a ton of hospitality even after the iraqis lost loved ones to our bombs. that says a lot about thier lack of a rush to judgement. i'm sure if the iraqi government accidentally blew up a few houses in my neighborhood they wouldnt be treated anywhere near the same if they visited here. :/

[punkgrrrlie10]

"The folks you know" are specific instances. When you are in a situation where your survival depends on always being on your guard...yes you treat everyone as a potential enemy...

And I think Chimp's pronoun choice had less to do with "we are kicking everyone's asses" and more to do with what he would do in a given situation where a child in front of him had a gun and it was him or them. You would react the same way that "they" would.

[Sethomas]

Episdode Two: Attack of the Clones?

[GAsux]

Kevin,
Sorry I missed this earlier as it's slipped so far it's become a moot point in the direction of the thread. I hate when real life gets in the way.

Regardless, here's what I'm saying with regards to the bin Laden family. The familes activities, connections, etc are well documented. They've been traced, followed, etc for the better half of the 90s. When the CIA created is "bin Laden" team, they basically obsessed themselves with everything Usama.

The reason I beleive it's NOT a valid argument is because I believe that bin Laden's family connections had already been exhaustively studied, with the conclusion being they had virtually no ties, almost no communication (there was indications that he contact mom a few times) and no control or persuasion over anything he did.

It wasnt as if bin Ladens family was living here in the U.S. and all around the world for years while we were targeting him as a chief backer of terrorism without pursuing that avenue. It was already done and over at that point and there was no reason to believe that they had any worthwhile information in the first place. Therefore, my point being they had no more knowledge of bin Laden's activities than O.J's mom did of his. Or Tim McVeighs of his, if you prefer to use the analogy on a grander scale.

[Stabby]

The reason I beleive it's NOT a valid argument is because I believe that bin Laden's family connections had already been exhaustively studied, with the conclusion being they had virtually no ties, almost no communication (there was indications that he contact mom a few times) and no control or persuasion over anything he did.

Well, studied or not, what would the harm have been in maybe kicking up an investigation after something of the magnitude of 9/11?

Apparently two of the bin Ladin's in the U.S., Omar and Abdullah, were involved in a group called the World Assembly of Muslim Youth which was labeled a "suspected terrorist organization." Now wheter it was or not, don't you think there maybe could have been an attempt at investigating any connection between them and their brother Usama, rather than rushing them out of the country? I thought the movie did a good job with this part.

Basically I agree with everyone on the movie in general. I thought it started out great, it presented you with a ton of information right away, and even though I had already heard all of it before, it made you think about it all over again and all at once. And for someone who may not be as inundated in Bush politics and criticism, like the theft of the election and the family/money connections, It hink it was good in that it will give them something to at least think about.

At some point though the movie seemed to slow down. We spend a lot of time in Flint and start to steer away from the big picture. And it sometime seemed like Moore didn't know what he wanted to say, but just wanted to take any stance opposite Bush, like as been mentioned already.

Still, if you haven't seen it you should, just for the sake of the hype if nothing else. If the Passion can get people all excitied over jesus, maybe this will at least get them excitied over something that really matters, like the dirction our country is going in.

[GAsux]

If they already knew, based upon over five years of tracking, phone tapping, etc., what would be the point? You're saying they should have done a dog and pony show to keep them even though they had nothing, just to make it appear that they were doing something? That's absurd.

The thing is, I will bet a large amount of money that all of those connections were ALREADY examined well prior to 9/11, with no results. By several accounts, the agents working in the bin Laden unit were considered to be almost cult like. In fact, they repeatedly challenged the Clinton Administration and George Tenet for NOT carrying out more strikes in Afghanistan when they had the chance.

They had sophisticated survelliance on bin Laden's routes, his safe houses, the methods he used to communicate with,etc. They had even used bin Ladens family as a source to get to him, asking for appeals from the family.

The reason they did not investigate after 9/11 is because they already knew there were no ties.

[The Retro Kat]

No, it's in fact absolutely nothing like that at all. 3,000 Americans had just been murdered. The United States of America had been attacked. Like Moore says in the film, I don't care if we have to inconvenience a few members of the Bin Laden family, you fucking do it. This is not a tiny point, I think it's in fact one of the strongest arguments he makes in the film.

And you're right, but Moore used the most useless fucking connection. He had a guy that was on for maybe 20 seconds say, "Bin Ladens are closer than you think, (I give you no evidence) recently there has been word that Osama was seen at a wedding"


OH SHIT SON THERE IS WORD ON THE STREET BITCHES, HE MIGHTA BEEN AT A WEDDING MUTHAFUCKA NO

[GAsux]

To further express what I'm getting at, the bin Laden family thing is suspect at absolute best. There has been no connection or indication of bin Laden having any type of communication with his family. Even if there had been an investigation, what could the possibly have hoped to get.

Rather than marginalize the argument with heresay and paper dragons, why not address the fact that at least half of the people who ACTUALLY COMMITTED the acts of 9/11 were on suspected terrorist "watch" lists, yet still managed to gain access to the country and live for several years in some cases, completely unmonitored.

Why not focus on real issues instead of arguments that lead nowhere? The bin Laden argument seems to imply that Bush is somehow mysteriously complicit in the 9/11 attacks, although the connection is vague and blury. It still gives the feeling that something sinister was afoot. The inability to stop suspected terrorists from entering the country in the first place or monitor their suspicious activities once they were in the country speaks more to beauracracy and mismanagement, which is far less sexy and sells far fewer books/papers/movies.

[Brandon]

Why not focus on real issues instead of arguments that lead nowhere? The bin Laden argument seems to imply that Bush is somehow mysteriously complicit in the 9/11 attacks, although the connection is vague and blury. It still gives the feeling that something sinister was afoot. The inability to stop suspected terrorists from entering the country in the first place or monitor their suspicious activities once they were in the country speaks more to beauracracy and mismanagement, which is far less sexy and sells far fewer books/papers/movies.
Moore seems much more interested in making the Bushies out to be pure evil. Case in point? Intercutting video of Lila Lipscomb's grief with video of Bush smirking, blinking, or just generally looking clueless.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Regardless, here's what I'm saying with regards to the bin Laden family. The familes activities, connections, etc are well documented. They've been traced, followed, etc for the better half of the 90s. When the CIA created is "bin Laden" team, they basically obsessed themselves with everything Usama.

The reason I beleive it's NOT a valid argument is because I believe that bin Laden's family connections had already been exhaustively studied, with the conclusion being they had virtually no ties, almost no communication (there was indications that he contact mom a few times) and no control or persuasion over anything he did.

I'm fairly certain that if you took a poll of Americans, and askedthem the number one failure that may have led to 9/11, more people would point to CIA intelligence failures than to the Bush/Bin Laden links. You say that the Saudi/Bin Laden point had already been harped upon, when it reality it's only post 9/11, and more specifically post 9/11 panel hearings, that those matters have taken on a wider debate within the general public. Yes, intellectuals and ex-CIA operatives have been writing books for years. But those people are always writing books and are always expressing opinions on how the world does or should function. In contrast, a small cottage industry has appeared to pop up in regards to intelligence failures, more books have been written, and it has become "common knowledge" that our intelligence is supposedly poor.

Moore was presenting, from his partisan perspective, a more nefarious argument that implcates the President more so, and strips him of that deniability. I think you're wrong when you argue that the Bush/Saudi link has been exhausted. Perhaps amongst a select few, but the debate is just now taking it's place in the spot light, and rightfully so, IMO.


It wasnt as if bin Ladens family was living here in the U.S. and all around the world for years while we were targeting him as a chief backer of terrorism without pursuing that avenue. It was already done and over at that point and there was no reason to believe that they had any worthwhile information in the first place.

So why not let more people fly? As Moore himself points out, why ground harmless Ricky Martin? The comparisons to O.J., and McVeigh's mom, and whoever, just don't apply to this scenario. Once again, IMO, "exhausted outlets" could endure just a bit more "exhausting" when 3,000 Americans die.

And who says they had no worthwile information? You don't even question them? Fine, granted, let's say they were exhausted resources. Why do they get special exceptions? Why does this government scoop them up around the country? And please, don't give me the American backlash argument. They could've been protected in that case.

I'll say it again-- it's a day or two after arguably the worst attack on American soil ever, and you're going to tell me that we can go ahead and give them the green light to leave as a special exception, because the resource had been "exhausted" already.....?

[GAsux]

I wont get into all of that because it becomes a long winded argument which Im too lazy to engage in on a Sunday night.

But does not that then rationalize the argument to detain prisoners at Gitmo? There very well may be no charges against them either, and perhaps they are guilty of nothing more than association as well, but by that logic it seems to me to justify detention of them as well. In fact, the folks at Gitmo are probably MORE connected to terrorist attacks and Al Qaeda than bin Laden's family.

I agree they should have had to wait just like everyone else. But that's not the heart of the argument. And again, it alludes to a veiled reference that Bush was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

But does not that then rationalize the argument to detain prisoners at Gitmo? There very well may be no charges against them either, and perhaps they are guilty of nothing more than association as well, but by that logic it seems to me to justify detention of them as well. In fact, the folks at Gitmo are probably MORE connected to terrorist attacks and Al Qaeda than bin Laden's family.

IT WASN'T EVEN A WEEK AFTER 9/11!!!!!!! YES, detaining potential terrorists or terrorist-links is a GOOD thing, but detaining them with no trial for an undetermined amount of time at Gitmo seems to me like a BAD thing, but I digress....

They should've waited like everyone else, and more importantly, they should've been investigated again in light of their relative attacking our country. If we can detain people with Arabic names, or probe people who opposed the war in Iraq, then we can certainly inconvenience the fucking Bin Laden family for a few extra days. Put them up in a nice hotel, treat them like the royalty they certainly think they are. Do whatever, but keep them, probe them, and MAKE SURE.

And again, it alludes to a veiled reference that Bush was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

I disagree. I think the point he was making was that the Bush family would/will kowtow to the Saudis, and that they would kowtow so much as to let people with possible terrorist attachments fly out like beloved diplomats. I don't think Moore ever argues for Bush complicity with 9/11, although you could certainly argue that his ambiguity dances on the line at times throughout the film....

[GAsux]

Can we at least agree that you're probably better educated on the subject and more grounded than 70% of the country who will see this movie?

While someone who's relatively informed and interested in the subject may have the ability to determine what is or isn't being conveyed, how many do you suppose will have that same ability?

Moore in my opinion has been purposely ambigious on many fronts, not just the bin Laden issue because it makes his case much stronger than if he got into the detials. Veiled references leaving the viewer to draw their own conclusions about what hes hinting at is far more effective. Regardless of the validity of the argument.

[ScruU2wice]

Some one made an interesting point about the whole Iraq playground scene, that we were totally being prepped for the war by the media but it musta been a total suprise to the people in Iraq. I think the whole playground thing was that people were living life as they do and all of a sudden America invades outta nowhere.

:(

[george]

i plan to see this movie mostly because i already hate bush, and seeing him lampooned will amuse me. i dont care if moore is right or not, you can not want bush out of office ENOUGH as far as i am concerned.

ok, earlier there was sympathy for bush avoiding hard questions on the golf course by getting them to watch him swing the club, because he is on the golf course and what else should he be doing? HE SHOULD NOT BE ON THE FUCKING GOLF COURSE!!!!!! HE IS ON FUCKING VACATION WHILE AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND CITIZENS ARE BEING FUCKING MURDERED IN A MOTHERFUCKING WAR THAT WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER FUCKING EVER STARTED

I REALLY DONT KNOW WHY THAT IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU. IF YOUR BUSINESS IS FAILING, YOU STAY AT THAT MOTHERFUCKING JOB UNTIL THE PROBLEM IS FIXED. we all live like this, except for the laziest, lowest morons. he is playing fucking golf while i am paying five fucking dollars a gallon for milk to pay for american soldiers to be murdered. "now watch this swing" indeed

and for those of you in the 18 to 25 range, unless you feel like a mandatory vacation in southwest asia, you better get on the anti bush wagon, cause the government is preparing for it. they have been slowly hiring people into the selective service offices, and laying the groundwork.

bush IS evil, and there are so many reasons that it could make you puke if you reviewed them all ( i will start another thread for that idea), and no one seems to see it.

i am just glad moore is adding fuel to the anti-bush fire.

[Perndog]

:lol "murdered" soldiers

It's not murder if you volunteer for military service. Military = war = people die.

[ziggytrix]

But it IS murder if they capture you, then decapitate you while you are their prisoner.

[george]

they chopped the head off a marine yesterday.

the marine was enaged in the occupation of a country we should have never invaded. even if you accept the occupation of iraq as something we should have been involved in (and being a dumb ass you might) then you can not seriously think that getting kidnapped and having your head chopped off is perfectly normal conduct during a war. it is murder no matter how you stand on the iraq issue.

it is easy for you to say "they volunteered for it". no they did not. they volunteered to defend their country against foes foriegn and domestic, not be the instruments for US oil policy. just cause somebody with more guts than your sorry ass will ever have made a commitment to serve the needs of his country does not mean that that pledge should be abused and misused and then shoved in their face to show them where they stand. it is especially people like you that make me disgusted by the current state of our country, you sit there in all your wussy splendor minimizing the loss of brave people with a smug "they volunteered for it" while you have never volunteered to do anything more signifigant than to buy the next round.

[Perndog]

Yawn. Ad hominem is fun, right? Especially when you don't know anything about your target, right? And when you're on the Internet so you don't have to provide any evidence at all, right?

Being taken prisoner is normal conduct in a war.

Having your head chopped off is normal conduct in a Middle Eastern prison.

I don't have anything more to say on the topic.

[george]

i somehow doubt i was far off the mark.

yes, yawn, you have nothing to worry about. you are perfectly safe in your middle class insignifigance.

[ScruU2wice]

so it's ok for middle aged contractors who have little to no military connection to be beheaded.

Just because beheading is commonplace doesn't mean it's alright, it's considered just as bad there as it is here...

[george]

i thought i made it clear that was just as bad as the marine. i was only going on about the military aspect in response to perndog making light of the situation.

[ranxer]

Being taken prisoner is normal conduct in a war.

Having your head chopped off is normal conduct in a Middle Eastern prison.

the U.S. has been ignoring the Geneva convention.. do you think others should obey it when we aren't? i'm not defending beheading but i think its a tiny minority engaged in atrocities so we should be very careful how we react to that.. i'd hate to see more innocents killed as a result of this.

lets start with cleaning up our conduct. step one might be to publicly abolish the policy of pre-emptive war. [/quote]

[Brandon]

lets start with cleaning up our conduct. step one might be to publicly abolish the policy of pre-emptive war.
Well, I disagree with that. I think preemptive war could be justified if a country has been proven to be sponsoring or planning terrorist activity against another.

[AChimp]

Then you should issue a formal declaration of war against that country, not simply cross it's borders with your army and say that you're only looking for a handful of people. :rolleyes

[conus]

lets start with cleaning up our conduct.

That might take some doing. The conduct of a few soldiers in the field pales when you compare it to some U.S. foreign policies and actions over the last fifty years. They've put into power and/or subsidized some of the most insane dictators ever to have walked this earth.

[Jixby Phillips]

this movie wasn't as funny as cannadian bacon :/

[Matt Harty]

I expected for him to use more ironic comedy like in Bowling For Columbine, but it was pretty good.

My Bush fanatic grandpa brought me to see it. Right after the movie ended he said "Fuck Moore" but said the movie was good. :(

[Bobo Adobo]

I just saw it. I liked it. It was very funny and had some great points. but it is definitally one sided propaganda. anybody who says otherwise is just stupid.

[ziggytrix]

i don't think anyone is trying to make that point tho, bobo.

[Bobo Adobo]

I know, but i am. And Micheal Moore is apperently saying it isn't propaganda. Propaganda gives me the runs. :(

[kellychaos]

Actually, Moore did admit it was more of an op/ed piece than a documentary prior to it's release. Not that I don't think that he's a smug, opinionated shithead with an agenda but he was honest in that respect.