Well... here 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is.

POSTED BY: Quicksand
UPDATED: Thursday, March 30, 2006 17:02
VIEWED: 28615
PAGE 12 of 13

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Friday, July 2, 2004 3:08 AM

http://www.dailycampus.com/news/2004/02/03/Focus/Christopher.Hitchens.
Explains.Why.Left.Is.Not.Right-595858.shtml

Christopher Hitchens

His support for the Iraq war probably explains his review of F 9/11:

In 2002, following a highly publicized guerre de plume with author Noam Chomsky over American culpability for the Sept. 11 attacks, Hitchens left the weekly liberal magazine The Nation, where his bi-weekly column the "Minority Report" had appeared since 1982.

This and Hitchens' subsequent support for the Iraq war have made him a virtual pariah among the left ...

RUE

Friday, July 2, 2004 3:32 AM

MACBAKER:

First you said

"Read the reviews above, they expose the "propaganda" style fact twisting that Michael Moore is infamous for. He's like P.T. Barnam. He's a showman, but he's no docmentary filmmaker. IMHO" and,
"Sorry Tink, but I'm not the only one calling his tripe propaganda." (Then you posted pages of Debbie Schlussel.)

Then you said

"I agree completely that Debbie's review is right wing, and YES it IS propaganda!!!! ... Your fatal flaw in logic, is assuming that I share her views!"

If you meant you didn't share her views on the movie - then better contradictory words were never spoken !

RUE

Friday, July 2, 2004 4:07 AM

I can't believe all the postings from people who say they have read nothing that makes them think F9/11 is different from Moore's other movies (What were they reading, then?), then go on to summarize the movie as propaganda (but haven't seen it !)

.... sheesh

There's nothing like an 'informed' opinion.

DORAN

Friday, July 2, 2004 4:39 AM

"His support for the Iraq war probably explains his review of F 9/11:"

So let me see if I'm understanding you here.. Those that support the troops and the war in Iraq will not have good things to say about Moore's flick - is that about it?

RUE

Friday, July 2, 2004 5:01 AM

Saw the movie:

I thought it tried to cover too much ground. And Moore backed off of topics. There were several parts where he was just getting to the center of an issue ... and then he left it. The movie would have been better served if Moore had cut down the number of topics but pursued the remaining ones in greater depth.

I am a strong believer in first-hand information. Recognizing that, and that even documentaries are not scholarly research referenced up the wazoo, I think Moore did only a fair job of putting up on screen the things the Administration leaves out of its carefully scripted and staged pronouncements.

Some things stood out - at the beginning, before the Administration's 'theatre' goes on and the players are getting ready, putting on their makeup, reviewing their lines, combing their hair, the footage of Bush trying out different expressions for the camera was seriously disconcerting. There was no real connection between the message content and the man - it was faked. And like Dan Rather, I found Bush's reaction during 9/11 to be - horrifying. Words don't do it justice - you'd have to see it for yourself.

I thought the most eloquent part was when a Corporal, who'd served in Iraq, said he wouldn't go back because he didn't want to again be in a situation where one poor person was killing another poor person, for no reason.

On leaving the film, I had two distinct impressions: 1) there was a collage of issues to be sorted out at some later time, and 2) the case that Bush lied about Iraq was skillfully, irrefutably, and subtly made.

You don't have to agree with Moore's musings about why Iraq to know the country was had.

RUE

Friday, July 2, 2004 5:07 AM

Doran,

I didn't generalize. Iraq and this particular author have a well-known history.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 3, 2004 4:03 PM

YOO HOO!!

To those who cite right-wing reviews of MM's film as "proof" that he lied... Unlike you, I actually did look into your URLs. I really don't have the time to go point-by-point with each one, but I WILL give a signficant examples from each one about how they are full of...Oh hell, I'll just call it horseh*t.

--------------------------
MICHAEL DALY

"Moore tries to prove that President Bush was somehow culpable in Islamo-Arab attacks on the US in September 2001...that the US somehow staged attacks on its own soil."

That was not the point of the film! Did he even SEE it???

---------------------------------

DEBBIE SCHUSSEL

Debbie's piece is full of trivia and innuendo. I cut out a lot of verbiage to make her points clearer (I hope)

"The close relationship between ... the current President and the Saudi Royal Family is troubling... They foster and fund madrasas, mosques, and clerics who preach the death of the West, Christians, and Jews. They hold telethons to fund the "martyrs" and allowed Al-Qaeda to grow. Women can’t drive, and non-Muslims are the equivalent of slaves. Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar is slimy and dishonest. But...given the large Saudi investment in our economy... a change in Saudi leadership could result in the collapse of our economy...That is why it’s important for Bush to remain on good terms with the sleazy country that is the home to public beheadings and 15 of the 19 hijackers."

This might explain POLITICAL delicacy but it doesn't explain the BUSINESS relationships between Bush and the House of Saud, which have been fully documented elsewhere.

"Jim McDermott was on the take from Saddam Hussein.... Mr. Alkhafaji... gave Congressman McDermott $5,000 in October 2002 for McDermott’s legal defense fund"

$5000??? OMG!! Thats sure makes several billion dollars look like peanuts!

"Very telling is the presence of the Al-Jazeera microphone in one segment of a women crying, "Allah Hu Akbar" (Allah is Great). Moore apparently thinks the sympathetic Terrorist News Network (Al-Jazeera) is the epitome of accurate news reporting... Moore exploits the grief of Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq. She denounces Bush and the War."

Yes, the fact that media is present means it's all faked.

"What about the meeting between hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence agents in the Czech Republic before 9-11?"

Meeting with people doesn't mean cooperating with them. Our intelligence officers "meet with" all kinds of people, including terrorists. There IS evidence that al Qaida asked Saddam for help and was turned away.

"What about the Iraqi training camp in Salman Pak where Al-Qaeda used abandoned planes to train to hijack them?"

The information was given by a "defector" supplied by Ahmed Chalabi. Both have since been determined by CIA to be unreliable.

"What about Ramzi Youssef, the Iraqi Secret Service agent and mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, who is the nephew of 9-11 Al-Qaeda mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?"

Yes, what about Youssef? It's believed he was a native of the Baluchistan area of Pakistan, and grew up in Kuwait. His only connection to Iraq was that he entered the USA on a FAKE Iraqi passport.

OK, I'm tired of wading though crap. You get the idea. On to the next...

-----------------------

CHRISTOPHER HITCHINS

"Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.... (so) Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest) or they do not...As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. "

The business relationship has been documented in great detail. And Chris must realize that both USA and Saudi foreign policy are not an either-or pr

ZIL

Sunday, July 4, 2004 10:38 PM

I've had to deal with a lot of the insanity surounding moore's movie these past weeks... questions and accusations... I'm the manager of a movie theater. and we were one of the 3 theaters in maine to get the film. I had to fight to get it and I'm glad we have it. sad to say I'm not that politically minded, thats my own fault, I'd rather vote for broccoli than any of the candidates nominates thus far... but I'll tell you I think its a brilliant film. not for its views, not for its factualness, not for the shock and awe factor, but because its doing something thats been needed for a long time. its getting people interested in their government! and thats an awesome thing. weither they go out and vote to get bush out of office or they vote for bush because the film effected them negatively it gets them to vote! if all this film does is that... its good.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 10:27 AM

Huh.

Interesting to hear about it from YOUR viewpoint!

MM's movie was the only one in many years where people actually clapped at the end of the movie... and where two police cars were parked out in front.

Glad to hear that you're taking a bigger view on it all than just $$$.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 9, 2004 6:55 PM

Doran, I have a question for you (and others) under the "demonization" thread. It's a real question. Hope you read and respond. Thanks!

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE