[Lex]

Saw this last night - shocking quite frankly. I wasn't expecting it to be as powerful as it was, many people in the cinema were in tears...

I have heard so much on the news over the last week or so about how the film was flawed, and that facts were misrepresented etc... all lies. The single most powerful fact in the film is indisputable: Bush is a grade 'A' moron. Anyone who can't see that is simply blinded by ideology. The guy doesn't know what day it is or what planet he is on! The footage of him bumbling around at a classroom photoshoot whilst his country was under attack is simply unbelievable. Bush supporters might be wishing it weren't true, but it is.

There are so many talking points from the movie, and so many unbelievable moments. What Bush has done is simply unforgivable. I can only hope that this film will help to open the eyes of the many people who are can't see Bush for what he is...

[Stuart Wright]

Wow that's quite a powerful review, too.
I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[Rochdale]

I was going to go see this at the cinema this week but unfortunately seem to have contracted chicken pox from someone at work that has a diseased child

At least it will give me a chance to catch up and watch some dvds that I bought but still haven't watched. As Mr Moore has said he doesn't mind if people download it I might see if I can grab a copy off the web, I'll definately buy it on dvd when it comes out though.

[chard]

I can only hope that this film will help to open the eyes of the many people who are can't see Bush for what he is...

I think you are the sort of viewer that Moore is hoping for.....sorry but you have to read some of the alternate reports and not just be spoon -fed Mr Moores propaganda.

For example...consider

1
Bush was asked to wait in the classroom by aides until they knew more info - he did his best to keep calm in front of the kids - what did you want him to do jump up and down screaming and panic a classroom of 6 year olds ? easy manipulation of the footage by Moore and in your case it worked.

2
Moore makes an issue of the Bush family and the Bina Ladens. Big deal so two main oil families had business contacts, it would be surprising if they didn't.
Bush Sr cut all contact with the Carnagie group well before 9/11

3
The Bin Laden family had no connections with Osama- and they weren't flown out until much later than Moores film states - and the approval came not from Bush but from one of his critics.

4
Moore fails to interview or show any footage of the horros of Saddams regime.

Moore paradoxically accuses George Bush Jr. of complex conspiracy and gross icompetence.
It is Moore who is found out by close examination of his work - then again he hopes certain people don't think about it too much and take his twisted word on it, oh, and hand over the dosh for the pleasure, as he made this for the cinema not PBS.

I do worry that this simplistic, moronic propaganda will come over to this side of the Atlantic - I would hate to see Alistair Campbell release films like this into the British Cinema with little counterbalance.

[bjd]

"I do worry that this simplistic, moronic propaganda will come over to this side of the Atlantic ........."

I agree, and it's remarkable that Blair believed it all

[r47463]

I've just returned from the cinema after seeing this. It was obviously biased, and so people must understand there is no one source of reliable information with reference to politics. Michael Moore came across as much as a bumbling fool as Bush in that film, but the editing worked in his favour.

The brutality of 9/11 and the Iraqi war cannot be denied, yet I wonder why this film got a theatrical release. Does Moore think we forget so easily? This has no more value than any other documentary. After September 11 I wondered how soon it would be until someone cashed in on it and released a film.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by chard

1
Bush was asked to wait in the classroom by aides until they knew more info

erm? Who is in charge then? "Mr. President our country is under attack - go and read 'My Pet Goat' until we tell you what to do"!

These are the facts:

1.Bush had been given a Memo on AUGUST 6th 2001 about how Bin Laden was planning to attack the USA using aeroplanes.

2. The WTC had already been attacked by Bin Laden a few years previously.

3. Bush informed of first plane hitting WTC before he enters classroom - he decides to go ahead with photoshoot.

4. He is told of SECOND plane hitting WTC - he does nothing except sit there reading 'My Pet Goat'

Not rocket science is it

Originally Posted by chard

2
Moore makes an issue of the Bush family and the Bina Ladens. Big deal

Absolutely! Big deal if Bush was having dinner with Bin Laden's Brother in Law after 9/11 - Do you think he will be inviting Timothy Mcveigh's
relatives round for tea?

Originally Posted by chard

3
The Bin Laden family had no connections with Osama

Erm... Many of them attended the same wedding (of one of his sons) as him months earlier... Whilst the USA rounded up thousands of innocent people with any tenuous link to Bin Laden in the days/weeks after 9/11 they flew his close family members out of the country in private jets without asking them anything!

Originally Posted by chard

4
Moore fails to interview or show any footage of the horros of Saddams regime.

Does anybody doubt that Saddam was a bad guy? Does that excuse the slaughter of innocent Iraqi's by US troops?

Originally Posted by chard

Moore paradoxically accuses George Bush Jr. of complex conspiracy and gross icompetence.

Moore hardly claims that Bush Jnr is the brains behind the conspiracy

Originally Posted by chard

It is Moore who is found out by close examination of his work

I am not convinced that you have closely examined his work. Have you even seen the film?

[sapper44]

This film is so bias it will probably work in Bushes favour,people will think this just cant be true.

[chard]

So there is NO direct link with Bush and Osama Bin Laden ? The fact that an American oil family might have had dealings with one of the main Saudi oil families is hardly news, is it ?

The Bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the country after the flying ban was lifted, big deal, are you suggesting EVERY arab family is guilty ? As you say, Timothy McVeigh's cousins are just as innocent as Osamas, any links made by Moore because of their name or background reeks of racism.

[/QUOTE]Does anybody doubt that Saddam was a bad guy? Does that excuse the slaughter of innocent Iraqi's by US troops?[QUOTE]

that statement shows the inherent prejudice....where is the evidence that American troops were 'slaughtering' (if you mean deliberately) innocent Iraqis.
Showing the undoubted (your words) slaughter of Iraqis by Saddam, would have explained the presence of troops and the need for the war, rather than the one sided view of the film.


"have you seen the film?"

yes, have you READ anything other than from Mr Moore ?

Bush is obviously smart enough to secure the highest political position in the world - as usual the left like to portray successful right wing politicians as mad. Thatcher got the same treatment by the left wing in this country. The left believe they know what is best for the rest of us and detest democracy when it goes against them. Therefore they just can't accept the election in 2000 and are now trying to personalise the election of 2004.

[chard]

I wasn't expecting it to be as powerful as it was, many people in the cinema were in tears...

thats what propaganda is for......you should watch some of the old Goebels films, you might walk out believing that Hitler was a good guy and Churchill was a moron. I can only suggest that you read as much as you can and make up your own mind , not simply trot out multi millionaire Michael Moores theories.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by chard

As you say, Timothy McVeigh's cousins are just as innocent as Osamas, any links made by Moore because of their name or background reeks of racism.

I am not accusing them of being guilty of attacking the WTC - the point is that they were given a free pass out of the country at a time when their relative was the most wanted man on the planet! Surely we should have been questioning them, interrogating them, anything other than letting them go! It is total hypocrisy when you compare it the way other 'lesser' people were rounded up and put in jail.
The reason this happened was because they were rich and have influence over the Bush family. It is outrageous. Why would anybody seek to defend such corruption?

Originally Posted by chard

that statement shows the inherent prejudice....where is the evidence that American troops were 'slaughtering' (if you mean deliberately) innocent Iraqis.

Of course I do not for a moment think that they were killing civilians deliberately, and I did not suggest that they were. The US/UK troops were as much victims in this as the Iraqis. My point is why did the slaughter need to take place at all?

Bush is obviously smart enough to secure the highest political position in the world - as usual the left like to portray successful right wing politicians as mad. Thatcher got the same treatment by the left wing in this country.

I'm sorry but I can't help but feel it was privilege and not smarts which got Bush elected President.
By bringing the issue of Thatcher into this debate you are not dealing with the facts, but painting broad ideological generalisations.

The left believe they know what is best for the rest of us and detest democracy when it goes against them. Therefore they just can't accept the election in 2000 and are now trying to personalise the election of 2004.

I really don't see how this is a left/right issue. Clinton was also inept at dealing with the threat of Bin Laden.

have you READ anything other than from Mr Moore .

Yes I have read plenty - don't try and paint me as some dumb leftie idealogue. That I am not.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by chard

thats what propaganda is for......you should watch some of the old Goebels films, you might walk out believing that Hitler was a good guy and Churchill was a moron. I can only suggest that you read as much as you can and make up your own mind , not simply trot out multi millionaire Michael Moores theories.

It is sad that you seek to reduce this to a personal level. You know nothing about who I am, yet you presume to lecture me on my level of reading because I do not accept the argument you are making...

[chard]

I really don't see how this is a left/right issue. Clinton was also inept at dealing with the threat of Bin Laden.

...sorry NOT a left/right argument !? come on ...you surely don't believe that Moore is not idealogically opposed to Bush and his right wing politics do you ? Why do you think that there is no mention of Clinton and the previous administration ? afterall the 9/11 attacks were concieved and planned on Clintons watch.

The Bin Laden clan were and are innocent. Their release was approved by an advisor to Bush who is now one of the main critics and he was solely responsible for approving their departure.

Moores film is a personal attack on Bush, and each and every argument of his falls apart. Even the ones you mention here prove nothing...

ie
So what if the Bush's knew some Bin Ladens !? proves nothing....
Nobody could be sure there were NO WMD before the war... hindsight is wonderful..
So what that the WTC had been attacked 7 years before, did that guarantee that it would be attacked again and by using planes this time !?
How many claims and threats do you think that the USA recieves every day !?
There is no evidence of a conspiracy stemming from Bush, just supposition....

Clinton had failed to prevent attacks on the USS Cole and the African embassy bombs - where is the conspiracy theory or claims of personal failure of Clinton !?

..........this film is just another piece of left wing political spin and not that clever at that...with the declared aim of jerrymandering the next election...

[Gary D]

Guys i'm not going tro get too involved in this argument, but i will say that Mr Moore has no been to kind to Clinton or the democats in his books. I also think that Bush supporters really shouldn't bring up the subject of elections - after all it is a FACT that he was never elected by a majority of voters.

Gary

[Miyazaki]

The key point for me about Mr. Moore's work, is that although the extreme right are always criticising and belittling his work, they have never found any legal grounds for prosecution.

That strikes me because Americans will sue anyone for anything, and they certainly would sue Mr. Moore if they thought they had any grounds. Trouble is, they don't.

The thing is as well that this documentary focuses mainly on American foreign policy. It doesn't really talk about the way Bush has completely ruined their economy, turning a record surplus under Clinton, to a record deficit in 4 short years. The depression in the late 1920's - early 1930's is the only time in American history this sort of thing has happened.

I can feel Moore's pain in his documentary, he scathes the Republicans for being the party of the élite, and the Democrats for being the party of the middle classes. There isn't a party in the USA that represents the people. Both parties claim to, but tax breaks that only give around 4% to the poorest people under Bush, while giving tax breaks of over 60% to the richest 1%. The Democrats don't do much better. All their policies are aimed firmly at the North-Eastern middle classes.

[Miyazaki]

Chard,

The CIA have admitted that we went to war, in so many words, on a lie. It has been said, in so many words, that Bush was determined to goto war anyway, and there was nothing any "intelligence" agency could have done to avert it.

Bush CUT "intelligence" funding almost immediately as he got into office, and it has been proven by the bipartisan 9/11 commission that Iraq held no direct threat to the USA.

The fact of the matter is that Bush invaded Iraq because of oil and a personal vendetta, Bush has said of Saddam "This is the man who tried to kill my Daddy". After you finish wetting yourself with laughter at Bush's stupidity, you realise that he has his inbred finger over the world's self-destruct button, and he ain't afraid to use it.

[Ed Selley]

The key point for me about Mr. Moore's work, is that although the extreme right are always criticising and belittling his work, they have never found any legal grounds for prosecution.

That strikes me because Americans will sue anyone for anything, and they certainly would sue Mr. Moore if they thought they had any grounds. Trouble is, they don't.

He hasn't done anything illegal and (this may suprise you) most republicans he features are generally content to leave him be because he'd be messier in court. The people that do respond aren't really right wing intelligensia just angry people.

The thing is as well that this documentary focuses mainly on American foreign policy. It doesn't really talk about the way Bush has completely ruined their economy, turning a record surplus under Clinton, to a record deficit in 4 short years. The depression in the late 1920's - early 1930's is the only time in American history this sort of thing has happened.

Completely ruined is overstepping the mark. If the current administration had sat there with its thumb up its collective, the economy would still be a mess. Big chunks of the US economy are very uncompetitive and it doesn't matter if the party in charge has an elephant or a donkey on its tie pin. Sadly Kerry favours dumb protectionist policy as well so the economy looks set to be a mess beyond November irrespective of who wins.

I can feel Moore's pain in his documentary, he scathes the Republicans for being the party of the élite, and the Democrats for being the party of the middle classes. There isn't a party in the USA that represents the people. Both parties claim to, but tax breaks that only give around 4% to the poorest people under Bush, while giving tax breaks of over 60% to the richest 1%. The Democrats don't do much better. All their policies are aimed firmly at the North-Eastern middle classes.

He being the man of the people that he is in his Manhattan penthouse with his daughter attending one of the most elitist schools on the Eastern Seaboard. Amusingly Mr Moore's charitable donations declared in fiscal year 2003 was $0. The only thing worth reading on the otherwise shabby and childish moorexposed.com is "Should a 350lb man really be advising us on the perils of over consumption?" He is a man of the people only as and when it suits.
I watched F/911 and found it diverting enough although for a man Moore, pillories as an imbecile, that George W certainly spends a lot of time involved in clever conspiracies- so is he a fool or an evil genius? Moore doesn't seem sure enough to tell us one way or the other. It completely ignores the one thing that I abhor Bush for- Christian Fundamentalism, his (to my mind) unforgivable facet.

Edited to make a bit more sense

[mrtbag]

Chard,

Just so we can get a feeling as to whether you are anti Michael Moore, do you think the film Bowling For Columbine is just as much a piece of propaganda?

I for certain feel that although Michael Moore does sometimes produce what seems a very one sided, and narrow point of view. A lot of the points he makes are true.

[chard]

Guys i'm not going tro get too involved in this argument, but i will say that Mr Moore has no been to kind to Clinton or the democats in his books.

unfortunately like the left in this country who criticise Blair, the only criticism they make is that he is not left enough. That is not the same as venom they reserve for the right wing.

He being the man of the people that he is in his Manhattan penthouse with his daughter attending one of the most elitist schools on the Eastern Seaboard. Amusingly Mr Moore's charitable donations declared in fiscal year 2003 was $0.

couldn't have put it better....

Games Guru wrote

The CIA have admitted that we went to war, in so many words, on a lie. It has been said, in so many words, that Bush was determined to goto war anyway, and there was nothing any "intelligence" agency could have done to avert it.

no it didn't...the recent commision said that there were weaknesses and shortfalls and inncorrect intelligence...that is NOT the same as saying there was deliberate lying.

Answer me this - if this was such a deliberate lie about WMD, how come NOT ONE SINGLE Intelligence agency including the French and Russian criticised the belief that he had WMD or proved this to be a deliberate lie.?

Everyone believed there were WMD (although some disputed the ludicrous 45 min claim), my God when even the French didn't cllaim that he had none, you have to take note !!

The fact of the matter is that Bush invaded Iraq because of oil and a personal vendetta

sorry to be rude, but this argument is getting tiresome, especially as there is no proof that America or Bush personally will benefit from Iraqi's producing their own oil. This war has cost America and the UK for that matter, its not as though we are invaders who are loading up oil tankers with the spoils of war!
As for the claim that the whole of the White House staff including many powerful men in their own right , stood by while Bush decided to attack Saddam because he upset his Dad.....!?? thats just bonkers mate

Just so we can get a feeling as to whether you are anti Michael Moore, do you think the film Bowling For Columbine is just as much a piece of propaganda?

well yes, but BFC was slightly more subtle. It is full of innacuracies and misleading statements, and the 'hounding' of octagenarian Heston at the end was lazy and cruel. This does not make me anti-Moore, just anti his latest two political tracts, if I want to see this sort of stuff, I will watch a Kerry political broadcast.

oh and as a right wing voter who believes in free and available abortion and
is a life long atheist, I don't agree with all Bush stands for, but if you have to put vote somewhere, I would chose Republican realism over Democrat idealism every time, the same decision applies to the UK.

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by chard

well yes, but BFC was slightly more subtle. It is full of innacuracies and misleading statements,

It if was, he would have been sued by now.

[chard]

It if was, he would have been sued by now.

why ? who cares ?

just because something is innacurate and misleading doesn't mean you can win in court - you would have to prove harm and intent and much of Moores misleading presentation can be covered by freedom of speech arguments as he will say that he is expressing his opinion.
I don't want to stop Moores films, I don't think they should be censored, I just feel free to criticise them and to see them for the naked proaganda they are.

You must have heard him say that he wants his film to help defeat Bush in the election ? does that alone, not make you question everything in his film?....it should !

I find him and other one issue commentators, boring....you can predict every single viewpoint that he has, or is likely to have on any topic....

add in his personal hypocracy which others have added here then he becomes a really tedious annoying git.

[bjd]

"Everyone believed there were WMD (although some disputed the ludicrous 45 min claim), my God when even the French didn't cllaim that he had none, you have to take note !!"

Er, everyone, that is, except the people who were best placed to make the judgement-the weapons inspectors. Shame their views were steamrollered by the Bush/Blair desire to go to war. No hindsight is needed on the WMD issue-we were told at the time that they were not being found.

[Gary D]

there is a supply of fresh handbags in the lobby.


Gary

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by chard

why ? who cares ?

just because something is innacurate and misleading doesn't mean you can win in court - you would have to prove harm and intent and much of Moores misleading presentation can be covered by freedom of speech arguments as he will say that he is expressing his opinion.

Since when has any of that stopped one American taking another to court?

If it was true that something Moore stated in a film was deliberately misleading or as good as a lie, then there are a myriad of cases any money-hungry lawyer could easily bring to the fore.

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

Since when has any of that stopped one American taking another to court?

If it was true that something Moore stated in a film was deliberately misleading or as good as a lie, then there are a myriad of cases any money-hungry lawyer could easily bring to the fore.

I broadly speaking agree with you except that defamation cases are less common than you might think, although my addled memory tells me that a case was brought against Moore over BFC and was mentioned in The Smoking Gun about a year back. Moore is not (often) deliberately misleading, but his editing style is highly prone to popping things onto film that are not in the same context they happened in. The Charlton Heston speeches in BFC are the ones that spring to mind- Moore makes it look like he toured around with the NRA visiting sites of shootings and winding everybody up. Instead he vilified an old bloke who Alzheimers who wasn't exactly Ivy league material in his youth- its hardly going up against the varsity is it?

[selexus]

sorry to be rude, but this argument is getting tiresome, especially as there is no proof that America or Bush personally will benefit from Iraqi's producing their own oil. This war has cost America and the UK for that matter, its not as though we are invaders who are loading up oil tankers with the spoils of war!

Have a quick peak at this book and it's associated web site and links. It may just persuade you otherwise.
Peak oil

The part that talks about oil wars being the most likely outcome is the bit that got my attention !!

[chard]

Selexus, more doom and gloom, this has been predicted for years. I n fact the amount of declared oil reserves has not decreased over the last few decades. That is because more and more oil is discovered as needed, even if that means in the future we collect oil from environments and by processes that are difficult now.

Of course it is a finite source and as the basis of our economy we have a right to ensure a steady supply. If somene threatened that supply , that would be as good a reason for war as anything else eg food or water.

However, therre is still no evidence that that was the sole or even main reason for the Iraq war. If Bush wanted to have access to Iraq oil he could have done a deal with Saddam, who would have been only too glad to sell his oil and secure his long term future, much as Gadaffi has just done.

[Lex]

David Letterman's Top Ten List:

Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":


10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

[selexus]

Originally Posted by chard

Selexus, more doom and gloom, this has been predicted for years. I n fact the amount of declared oil reserves has not decreased over the last few decades. That is because more and more oil is discovered as needed

Again it's just internet fact (pinch of salt optional) but it has been stated that 2003 was the first year for a very long time that a new oil field was not discovered.
Also the North sea oil fields have been dropping production for the last 5 years, they're simply running out! Yes it may take a few more decades until North sea oil is not viable to extract but the time is coming. Also it has been stated that to fill the growing demand for oil in the coming decade, Saudi Arabia needs to increase production by 30%. Oil industry sources recon the Saudis have capacity for 3-5% more..

Don't get me wrong, this guy has an interest in dramatising these stories to drum up interest for his book, but i do belive that the day countries go to war over oil will be in our lifetimes, and probably a lot sooner than most of us think.

However, therre is still no evidence that that was the sole or even main reason for the Iraq war. If Bush wanted to have access to Iraq oil he could have done a deal with Saddam, who would have been only too glad to sell his oil and secure his long term future, much as Gadaffi has just done.

You are, of course correct. It's all just conjecture, but hey, we all love a good conspiracy theory

[Lex]

So if the Iraq War wasn't about oil, and it wasn't about WMD, and it wasn't about Bin Laden or 9/11 or Al Qaeda, what was it about?!

...and please don't say "it was about liberating the Iraqi people"