Eve of Destruction

[pmw]

This thread is becoming... repetitive. i would suggest that if the dialogue simply descends to character attacks, that it be carried on via email. It becomes too difficult for anyone else to enter, and too hard to decipher. Dialogue being the main function of this site...Cool, glad it generates such fervent discussion nonetheless. And of course, look forward to reading new ideas / takes on the film.
P

[anduril]

Raoul: I've resorted to sarcasm because the claims of F9/11 and the claims made by you and especially Johann are preposterous. And, quite frankly, I think the sarcasm has served the argument that I have made because, especially in Johann's case, it has already showed just how far he is willing to take the conspiratorial logic and how little critical research he has done to arrive at his views.

Conspiracies of the type envisioned by F9/11 are ludicrous. They reflect a latent desire to explain events that the spinner feels that they can not control. Conspiracies help them to cope. Are there genuine conspiracies operating in this world? Sure Raoul. But not of the type that Oliver Stone or Michael Moore would have you accept. To propose that a group of such disparate people with so many disparate views, ideologies, aims, and philosophies could function as a single-minded entity with some long-term, inalterable, and unchangeable purpose is simply outside the realm of documented human experience. Life produces interesting coincidences, strange correlations, freaky and eerie innuendos but ultimately these are what they are and no more.

Let's take the Skull and Bones society. It is one of several so-called secret societies on Ivy League campuses. These secret societies are essentially and little more than the elite's version of fraternity. Its on-campus members are a collection of fortunate sons between the ages of 18-30. The secret societies meet a couple times a year to drink, eat, and talk. Obviously, given that most of the members are fortunate sons and attending one of the finest institutions in the world, it should not be surprising that these people go on to take up high powered positions the world over. But, while they share a common fraternity in their experience as members of the society, they are not in collusion to establish some sort of New World Order. That's the popular imagination gone wild, so enchanted by the rich, the famous, the powerful, and the ideas that a 'secret society' conjures up. Its nonsense and people who believe in that sort of nonsense really need to take a pill. The rich and the elite are far too concerned with their own lives and responsibilities to be gathered in dark rooms, plotting global domination. There are many reasons that converged to bring about the Iraq war and nowhere on that list can you justify a global conspiracy.

As for the Iraq war, it is justified on many grounds, quite apart from Moore's rhetoric:

(1) The Saddam regime was in persistent, repeated, and flagrant violation of the cease fire that ended GWI. It is significant to note that this reason alone justifies the conflict and also inveighs against the red herring that liberals throw out, i.e. "if we invaded Iraq, why don't we just invade North Korea or Iran?" The U.S. and the British took several preliminary steps to deal with these violations; they set up no-fly zones and instituted embargos on Iraq among other things. The violations continued.

(2) The Saddam regime, in collusion with officials from the U.N., abused the Oil for Food program, depriving Iraqi citizens of food and other humanitarian aid while simultaneously propping up the ailing regime. Source.

(3) Contrary to reports by the media and liberal populist opinion, the Saddam regime was attempting to reconstitute its WMD program. Despite the lengthy lead up to the conflict that allowed Saddam more than enough time to either transfer the weapons to the Baathist regime in Syria or hide/destroy these weapons and evidence pertaining to their existence, the Iraqi Survey Group still found considerable evidence. David Kay's Statement on the Interim Progress Report is a very instructive read and, I think, would surprise more than a few people who accepted the media position that nothing was found. It is also worth noting that the Iraqi Survey Group remains active under the direction of Charles Duelfer. I encourage you to read his Testimony to the US Congress.

(4) The UN Security Council, in unanimity, repeatedly determined that Iraq was in violation of its resolutions on several counts. In particular, Security Council Resolution 1441, passed by unanimous vote in 2002, decided that Iraq was and remained in material breach of prior resolutions, including Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) and provides legitimate authority to effect compliance through the use of military force. The failure of the UN Security Council to act upon these resolutions with force has meant that the United States and Britain, who already faced the enormous burden of enforcing the no-fly zones and the embargos, had to bear what should have been the responsibility of all member nations. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that if the UN had stood up in one voice that Saddam would have fled Iraq and sought asylum in Syria, thereby avoiding the war altogether. The divisions on the council, however, gave Saddam the hope that the United States would have to back down in the face of international pressure and opposition.

(5) The Saddam regime remained hostile and belligerent towards the United States. It has been recently confirmed by Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, that Iraq planned attacks on the United States. This information was provided to the United States. Source.

(6) Again, contrary to reports by the media and liberal opinion, there was considerable circumstantial evidence to suggest that al-Qaeda agents met with Saddam and other Iraqi officials for the purposes of identifying potential areas of cooperation in their mutual aggression towards the United States. Indeed, this is consistent with the safe haven Saddam provided to Ansar al-Islam, an Islamic terrorist group with connections to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda leader, and al-Qaeda, more broadly. The connections between Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda are well documented by many organizations, including the Human Rights Watch, which is hardly a right-wing organization. I encourage you to read HRW's Backgrounder on Ansar al-Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan. It is also notable that Iraq long supported and encouraged the Palestinian practice of suicide bombing.

(7) The Saddam regime was one of the most brutal dictatorships in modern memory. Its crimes are horrific, grotesque, and unimaginable. As horrible as the abuses by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib have been--these actually seem more like psych-ops to me, they pale in comparison; this is not to justify the Americans but rather to give people a basis from which to merely begin to understand the degree to which Saddam brutalized and torture thousands upon thousands. Again, Human Rights Watch serves as an independent source for information on these abuses. I encourage you to read some of their publications on Iraq under Saddam. As you'll quickly notice, this site also has reports on the conduct of Coalition forces in the country.

(8) On strategic grounds, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the development of a secular Iraqi state, comparable to Turkey, have had numerous positive consequences already and will have positive long-term consequences for Middle-East peace too. First, democracies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq will effectively isolate Iran and undoubtedly give strength to the reformist movement in that country. Iran will be completely encircled by prosperous and free states. Second, Iraq's constitution and democratic system will certainly serve as a model for countries such as Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt to emulate. Iraq will prove that democracy and freedom are not incompatible with Islam. Third, the liberation of Iraq has allowed Americans to move out of bases in Saudi Arabia where they were required in order to maintain stability and protect against Iraqi aggression. Obviously, the American military presence in Saudi Arabia is a huge source of the animosity that exists towards them. Saudi Arabia is the most sacred of the Arab lands in the Middle East. Fourth, Operation Iraqi Freedom will serve as a visible demonstration of American commitments to peace in the Middle East. Again, one of the sources of animosity towards the Americans in the Middle East has always been that the Americans have propped up dictatorships and, most notably after GWI, failed to adequately support popular uprisings against these regimes. Fifth, the instability in Iraq has meant that terrorists, who might otherwise attack civilians in the United States, are engaged in conflict with soldiers there. Many analysts are quick to point out that the Islamic militants have come flying out of the woodwork in Iraq but few have realized that this means they are not in the United States attacking civilians. The United States has effectively opened a front for its war against terrorism. This front contributes considerably to the safety of the world. Sixth, the denouement in Libya, as even Gadhaffi himself has stated, was inspired to some degree by American action against Iraq. I recognize that this denouement began earlier than the American invasion of Iraq but the decision to dismantle the WMD program was clearly post-invasion and, at least to some extent, related. Also, Libya's WMD program begs the question, "If a poorer country under equally stringent embargos could develop a WMD program that included an active nuclear program, why is there anyone who believes that Iraq didn't have WMD?"

Lastly, I'll just suggest an op-ed piece by Ann Coulter that is actually quite good and incisive. I could go on too but I won't. This is enough.

[Raoul]

Andy:

I'm glad to see that you've dropped the sarc. and come back to rationality.

Nobody has ever tried to say that Saddam was an alright guy, but you've got to admit, andy, that it's peculiar that the Iraqi dictator was the one the United States cared about. The US aided and abeted a similar regime in East Timor, They have flat out ignored the Warlords of Africa and stood idly by as Pol Pot did his thing. Why Saddam? I dunno. Ask your buddy George.

It's those sorts of inconsistencies that make people wonder. Also, the fact that Bush, his family and his associates reap more dollars than I will ever count in my lifetime off of the war every day is something that can't just be ignored.

This thread has been very educational. I see now that it is violently impossible for anyone to come to terms here.

The left fails to acknowledge the theory that no one is getting screwed here and the power structure in the world is simply a result of the cream rising to the top: people good at business becoming more powerful and wealthy

The Right fails to acknowledge that those in the most wealthy and powerfull positions have attained those positions underhandedly and continue to perpetuate their Oligarchy at the expense of the people of the world.

Conclusion: I forsee widespread civil unrest in the united states and globally in the very near future

Question: Have you seen the film, Andy? If now, how is it that you feel so comfortable commenting on it?

Raoul

[anduril]

Originally posted by Raoul
Nobody has ever tried to say that Saddam was an alright guy, but you've got to admit, andy, that it's peculiar that the Iraqi dictator was the one the United States cared about. The US aided and abeted a similar regime in East Timor, They have flat out ignored the Warlords of Africa and stood idly by as Pol Pot did his thing. Why Saddam? I dunno. Ask your buddy George.

It's those sorts of inconsistencies that make people wonder. Also, the fact that Bush, his family and his associates reap more dollars than I will ever count in my lifetime off of the war every day is something that can't just be ignored.

Even if I granted that all of these things you have written are accurate, how does it in any way, shape, or form serve as an argument against the war in Iraq given the reasons I posted? How does casting dispersions on Bush, on the White House, on Oil Executives, or any other group make the war in Iraq unjustified? How does alleged American inactivity in other crises around the world make a case for inaction in Iraq? The fact is that it doesn't. And, what's more, you are not accurate in the dispersions you've cast so how much worse does it make your case? (BTW, if you think that you are accurate, start supporting it with facts and reliable sources; you are not going to convince anybody just on your word, except those who already share your view.)

Originally posted by Raoul
Question: Have you seen the film, Andy? If now, how is it that you feel so comfortable commenting on it?

I answered these questions in my very first post.

P.S. Sarcasm is rational. It is one way among many to conduct a debate and/or elicit a person's views on something. It is a particularly effective way to see how far people are willing to take their views.

[Johann]

Here's THE FACTS, anduril. And you're definitely no friend of mine now.



1. I don't like Bush- I don't trust him. I don't trust our government either. Pardon me for that- they have more power and money than me. I must assume this or I KNOW I'm naive.

2. I don't have time to research politics when I have no interest in it. I care about politics as much as it affects my world. Movies are my world. Fahrenheit is a film- I reviewed it. I believe Moore. You don't like it, no skin off my back. You're gonna find out in the years to come how right the man is.

3. Chris Knipp e-mailed me about my "self-fufilling prophesy" in predicting that Bush will win in November. You won't see me gloat. I just see everything and I'm telling you what I see.
I want to be proven wrong so bad...
Bush will win. He bought it with his oily dollars. What do you think he's been doing these last 4 years? Planning for the next four. Is everybody fucked in the head here? Watch Bush win people....

And another thing: anduril has "employed sarcasm" because he knows I'm right. YOU MOCK WHEN YOU SHOULD BE INTELLIGENTLY DEBATING ME.

4. Skull and Bones are a dangerous group all right. They're "bad news" alright. anduril is one X@?%& if he thinks this "society" is just hanging out sipping tea enjoying brotherly love. They're only responsible for one evil in the world x?Y?@#. George W. Bush. I'm raging inside knowing that Yale is where this guy went to University. Yale means nothing to me now.

Finally, this discussion is getting repetitive. Sorry, P.
I don't wanna get into "he said she said" with people who are blind beyond all doubt.

Sixth sense, intuition, gut-feeling- you bet your ass I'll follow these over "published opinion". This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. My time and energy are not worth a pissing match.

[Johann]

The U.S. attacked Iraq with NO PROVOCATION

What right did the U.S. have to attack innocent people?

Sure saddam is a bad guy, but why bomb innocent people? Why kill innocent men, women and children.
They've screamed at soldiers- they've screamed at Bush:
Saddam may be a bad man, but he's OUR bad man.

How would you feel if bombs started raining on your head in Edmonton? People dying left and right? How would you feel if soldiers from another country barged into your home and started ransacking the place, looking for Saddam?

You wouldn't be happy, would you?

God bless America! The greatest liberators of all-time! We are enlightened! We help the world! If we can do this for Iraq, just think what we could do for your country! *just one question, though...psssst! do you have oil in your country?*


How's that for employing sarcasm? How far have you taken your blindness?

To the farthest reaches of ignorance..which is just left of hell.

[pmw]

As the admin, Ive editted the previous posts to remove certain comments about other users... easy enough to converse without hitting such levels.
P

[anduril]

Among your ad hominen attacks, I found a couple of salient points to address.

Originally posted by Johann
The U.S. attacked Iraq with NO PROVOCATION

What right did the U.S. have to attack innocent people?

Sure saddam is a bad guy, but why bomb innocent people? Why kill innocent men, women and children.

However, most of the salient points were, like this one, addressed in the eight points I made above or in my recent response to Raoul. If you disagree with my position then refute all eight points and provide sources to justify any position that I am not likely to take your word on.

Originally posted by Johann
They've screamed at soldiers- they've screamed at Bush:
Saddam may be a bad man, but he's OUR bad man.

This is the one salient point I could find that I've not actually addressed. Your argument, it seems to me, is that the people of Iraq did not want the invasion. Unfortunately for your argument, you happen to be wrong. Polls conducted by the Oxford Research Institute confirm that more Iraqis support the Coalition invasion than are against it. A majority of Iraqis believe their life is better now than before the war (56%) and an overwhelming number (71%) believe that life will be better for them in the future.

Naturally, resentment towards the Coalition presence in Iraq is building and future polls may indicate some change as that begins to be reflected. This is to be expected. The Coalition presence is a reminder that Iraqis are not providing their own security nor are they completely independent of the Coalition-led forces. This is, again naturally, a humiliating experience. But, that more Iraqis than not, can still, even despite their resentment, support the invasion and clearly indicate that life will improve says something profoundly important. They supported this war despite its costs.

And, you know, I believe the reason that they support it despite its costs is that they know the costs of living under Saddam even a day longer would have brought higher costs. In fact, I think alot of the anger towards the Coalition is that they didn't do this earlier; that they didn't finish the job eleven years ago. In those eleven years, considerably more Iraqis died under Saddam's brutal thumb then in the Coalition invasion and the months since.

Originally posted by Johann
How would you feel if bombs started raining on your head in Edmonton? People dying left and right? How would you feel if soldiers from another country barged into your home and started ransacking the place, looking for Saddam?

You wouldn't be happy, would you?

If it was necessary to win my freedom, bring it on. I'll take care of my family and do my best to stay out of their way.

[Johann]

For once I'll try to be civil here.


You completely dodged my question on why kill innocent people.

They're "circumstantial casualties" in your view. "War is hell", right? "Wrong place at the wrong time, suckers...we are bombing you to free you. Please die gracefully. Don't kill American soldiers who are liberating you. We'll just get mad and make you pose naked while we smoke cigarettes..."

Polls mean nothing to me. Who really cares about polls and who actually relies on them? I could tell you "polls show that 90% of American people hate Bush" and I might be right. Did I do a poll? No. But it sounds correct...
One out of ten doctors agree that Tylenol is the best pain reliever!

You mean to tell me that while some country is bombing you you're gonna huddle with your family and say over and over:
It's for the best, dear- we're being set free by these bombs. After the war we'll be free. Hand me that grenade, junior...

[anduril]

I didn't dodge your questions at all. I addressed each one.

And, Jason: When people suffer oppression and persecution, freedom is worth the fight and I'll tell you, as Iraqis do, that they fear Saddam more than coalition bombs. My family, in that situation, would see that freedom is coming and, for all the fear that the bombs might create in their hearts, the joy at the prospect of a new life would be their promise in the dark night. Say what you will, but if I lived in Iraq, I'd be overwhelmed that Saddam is gone. Finally, opportunity.

[HorseradishTree]

Originally posted by anduril
Say what you will, but if I lived in Iraq, I'd be overwhelmed that Saddam is gone. Finally, opportunity.

All right, I saw it, and now I'm going to have to butt in.

The thing is, you can't think in North American terms when you're considering Iraq. OK, Saddam is gone, and that's a good thing. But that's really not the only issue. Was it worth the civilian lives to achieve this? In my opinion, no, and that's me. And I know I'm not going to convince the world about it. Hell, I can't even vote yet.

We've managed to get the bad guy out of his mansion(s), but at what cost? So many dead, foreign unrest, and a divided country. I'd love to be everyone's friend, but because of a stupid political happening, some people refuse to trust me anymore.

Bottom-line: this film is a must-see. They're facts. Moore himself said the film isn't fair, but that's really not the point. This isn't the kind of propaganda to recruit Hitler's Youth here. Moore's not trying to manipulate you. He just loves his country and wants the best for it. It's not like he's shoving anything down your throat. He's just presenting evidence and seeing what we'll do with it. I commend the man for utilizing the cinematic medium to get out a message.

[anduril]

Originally posted by HorseradishTree
All right, I saw it, and now I'm going to have to butt in.

The thing is, you can't think in North American terms when you're considering Iraq. OK, Saddam is gone, and that's a good thing. But that's really not the only issue. Was it worth the civilian lives to achieve this? In my opinion, no, and that's me. And I know I'm not going to convince the world about it. Hell, I can't even vote yet.

We've managed to get the bad guy out of his mansion(s), but at what cost? So many dead, foreign unrest, and a divided country. I'd love to be everyone's friend, but because of a stupid political happening, some people refuse to trust me anymore.

Whose guilty of thinking in North American terms here? I'd say it is you. Do you have any idea of the thousands upon thousands of people that Saddam tortured, brutalized, and murdered? And, please don't even suggest that the casualties in the invasion or the incident at Abu Ghraib come close because they don't. It doesn't appear to me that the present generation in North America, including perhaps also myself, have any realistic notion of tyranny. People say over and over again that they know Saddam was a bad guy but they toss it around as if he was just a neighbourhood bully you could ignore. This man was evil. Hitler evil! Get it? He thought he was the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar, the ancient Babylon king--he even was working on rebuilding the city of Babylon; his modern-day political hero was Stalin. This man gassed men, women, and babies; he tore people limb from limb; shot them without provocation, simply for pleasure; he had whole populations exterminated; he stopped the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates for God-sake just to starve southern tribes--this devastated an entire natural ecosystem and way of life for thousands of people that had existed for literally hundreds of millennia. Do people not get this? You don't just turn your back on this type of evil. Damn it people. The outrage should be that the Americans let him run that country for so long; but to rail against the fact that they got rid of him now. My word, what is wrong with us?

Originally posted by HorseradishTree
Bottom-line: this film is a must-see. They're facts. Moore himself said the film isn't fair, but that's really not the point. This isn't the kind of propaganda to recruit Hitler's Youth here. Moore's not trying to manipulate you. He just loves his country and wants the best for it. It's not like he's shoving anything down your throat. He's just presenting evidence and seeing what we'll do with it. I commend the man for utilizing the cinematic medium to get out a message.

Michael Moore, like so many movie makers, wants an audience; everybody claims to be patriot to make a buck in the great olde U.S. of A. In this case, Moore has tapped into liberal hysteria over Bush, apparently an hysteria he himself buys into, and the result is a propaganda film. And, let's be clear... propaganda does not necessarily mean devoid of facts. Quite the contrary actually, propaganda is the deliberate use of ideas, information, or facts for the purpose of helping a cause, often by attempting to injure or cast dispersions on someone or something. This particular piece of propaganda makes selective use of the facts to create a lie.

[Chris Knipp]

Anduril,

Thank you for the link to the site of Farenheit 9/11 criticisms, because I am collecting those for a reply of my own, more as a definse of the film's whole approach and validity as a critique of Bush administration post-September 11th policies than to deal with dozens of nitpicking facts. The latter are just a propaganda device, as everyone knows, like the list of "errors" made up by the opposition to sling mud at the documentary, Chavez: Inside the Coup.

But since I have a lot of movies to write about and this one isn't first on my list, I'll state some points here.

Farenheit 9/11 is partisan. You can even argue that it's not a documentary at all, but that's another issue. I don't guess we're all violently opposed to passionate filmmaking. Passionate filmmaking is what we love, right?

Thus in a sense what it comes down to is, where do you stand? If you're seriously pro-Bush, you won't like this movie. If you refuse to see this movie, you're wearing blinders. You're afraid of something.

The anti-Moore sites and blogs are interesting to go through. It's surprising how feeble a lot of their points are. The one you cite, Anduril, has already backed down on a number of its "FFacts".

There is only one serious omission I've seen pointed out, and it is a serious one: Moore's failure to mention Israel in talking about the true motives for the invasion of Iraq.

An important fact to note is that Moore is all about facts now. Sure, he's in-your-face and not the least subtle. His lack of diplomacy has gotten him into trouble, notably when he was cut off at the Oscars. But we need guys who can get into trouble in the name of presenting the truth. Michael Moore is nothing short of a national treasure. That becomes clearer and clearer as the months and years go by. He becomes more and more valuable. Thank God for Michael Moore. He bridges the seemingly unbridgeable gap between Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh.

But nonetheless he's got his facts together. Moore isn't working by himself with a skeleton crew and on a shoestring in Flint, Michigan any more. He's got clout and he's got money and he's got a substantial staff. The upshot of that is that his fact-checkers are better and more energetic than his opponents'. So, be very careful when you challenge his facts.

But ultimately, perhaps what is most effective about Farenheit 9/11 isn't the facts and statistics Moore cites at such length or the outline of data he builds up about Bush and the Bush family and the events leading up to and subsequent to September 11th's terrorist attacks on the US.

What's most effective is the images. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there reading that book in the classroom as the Twin Towers topple. As he prepares to announce the invasion of Iraq. As he winds up a remark about fighting terrorists (okay, in Israel, not in Iraq: so what?), smirks and lines up a golf shot. The bland faces. The smirks. The banality of evil.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Thank you for the link to the site of Farenheit 9/11 criticisms, because I am collecting those for a reply of my own, more as a definse of the film's whole approach and validity as a critique of Bush administration post-September 11th policies than to deal with dozens of nitpicking facts. The latter are just a propaganda device, as everyone knows, like the list of "errors" made up by the opposition to sling mud at the documentary, Chavez: Inside the Coup.

The anti-Moore sites and blogs are interesting to go through. It's surprising how feeble a lot of their points are. The one you cite, Anduril, has already backed down on a number of its "FFacts".

To back down when in error is not a sign of feebleness; it is a sign of integrity. The blog lists a number of good points. But, personally, the point for me is not whether F9/11 employs facts or not. As I've stated before, Moore uses facts to create a lie. It is the selective use of information, the use of information irrelevant to the argument, and the juxtaposition of real yet essentially unrelated images. It is, also, the interpretive lens through which the information is presented. Consider the opening of the movie in which viewers are given a picture of Bush in the classroom and the narrator asks us to consider what Bush is thinking. Are these facts, Chris? Are the rhetorical questions by the narrator meant to elicit any fair consideration of what Bush's thoughts might have been at that moment? No. Moore isn't interested in the truth, at least not beyond his version of it.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Farenheit 9/11 is partisan. You can even argue that it's not a documentary at all, but that's another issue. I don't guess we're all violently opposed to passionate filmmaking. Passionate filmmaking is what we love, right?

Thus in a sense what it comes down to is, where do you stand? If you're seriously pro-Bush, you won't like this movie. If you refuse to see this movie, you're wearing blinders. You're afraid of something.

That's a red herring and you know it. Refusing to participate or watch something is not an indication of blindness or fear. The information in the movie is nothing new nor is Moore the first so-called documentarian to present this information. Moreover, I've now managed to see a good portion of the script. My refusal to watch this movie in the theatres is based on my unwillingness to support Moore, this project, or future projects like it. As a responsible consumer, that is my right.

As for being pro-Bush... I accept that there are more than a few things that I don't particularly like about the man's policies and judgment nor do I reject the notion that mistakes have been made in the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Incidentally, I thought Blair was a much better spokesman for the war than Bush. I do, however, support Bush over Kerry any day.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
An important fact to note is that Moore is all about facts now. Sure, he's in-your-face and not the least subtle. His lack of diplomacy has gotten him into trouble, notably when he was cut off at the Oscars. But we need guys who can get into trouble in the name of presenting the truth. Michael Moore is nothing short of a national treasure. That becomes clearer and clearer as the months and years go by. He becomes more and more valuable. Thank God for Michael Moore. He bridges the seemingly unbridgeable gap between Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh.

But nonetheless he's got his facts together. Moore isn't working by himself with a skeleton crew and on a shoestring in Flint, Michigan any more. He's got clout and he's got money and he's got a substantial staff. The upshot of that is that his fact-checkers are better and more energetic than his opponents'. So, be very careful when you challenge his facts.

But ultimately, perhaps what is most effective about Farenheit 9/11 isn't the facts and statistics Moore cites at such length or the outline of data he builds up about Bush and the Bush family and the events leading up to and subsequent to September 11th's terrorist attacks on the US.

What's most effective is the images. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there reading that book in the classroom as the Twin Towers topple. As he prepares to announce the invasion of Iraq. As he winds up a remark about fighting terrorists (okay, in Israel, not in Iraq: so what?), smirks and lines up a golf shot. The bland faces. The smirks. The banality of evil.

Again, I'd ask you to explain Moore's apparent psychic abilities and reconcile that with what you call "presenting the truth"... not to mention his omission of facts. A lie can be either a wilful and stated untruth or an omission of truth. Where to start on the relevant issues that Moore left out of his movie? In fact, please explain to me how, in the final analysis, casting dispersions on Bush makes the case against the war in Iraq or Afghanistan? I'd say Moore missed the whole point...

[Johann]

Why is anduril still being addressed here?
He hasn't seen the film.
This forum is for discussion of the film.

See the movie or begone!