I know this movie came out a while ago, and a lot has changed since then, but I feel Michael Moore is "right on target" with this movie when it comes to Bush's policies. Here is a link about it for those who have never seen it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/

What does everyone else think?

In case you haven't seen it, here's another one of those movies that dares asks questions about 9/11:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change&pl=true

I think the biggest problem with this is blaming this on one person. It was agreed upon by Congress.

Yes, it was a HORRIBLE and STUPID decision to go into Iraq... but the blame cannot be on the one person who proposed it or pushed it, but on the many - on BOTH sides - who agreed.

I have not seen that one yet, NeedKarma, but plan to.
I do agree RickJ that there is more to blame for this than just one person, there was a lot of people involved in it. I think this movie was just focusing on one person because he is SUPPOSED to be the leader of our country, and he represents us badly as a nation.

Agreed... but look at all the anti-Bush sentiment this movie generated for no good reason.

If MM were truly eager to show the truth, he'd be bashing ALL the jokers who went along with the "let's go into Iraq" plan.

... but no, he would have us thinking the one who "disagreed after he agreed" would have lead our country better.

Despite that I think Bush has SCREWED UP BIG TIME, if I had to vote again, I'd still have to vote for him. Kerry is a waffling weasle that cannot be trusted as far as you can throw him.

... please pardon this digression from my typical even tone, but this whole subject just burns me up. I'm ready to outlaw political parties altogether and go back to "may the best man win".

... of course I know that's not possible - I'm just venting a bit since you started the thread that invites venting. :(

I am not up on politics that much nor have the time to be but I do have one question. They knew about the energy crisis back in the 70's. Why didn't the presidents and the politicians try to do anything then? Also, there were a few times Clinton had his sites on Osama but couldn't have the guts to do anything about it. Or he couldn't get out of bed in time... if you know what I mean. I agree with Rick that every one is blaming one perosn for this whole mess when he is the only one to have the guts to stand up and fight.

What about that time that famous Rumsfeld handshake with Saddam?

http://www.whale.to/b/images/handshake300.jpg
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

Support him then bomb the crap out of him - what happened in between?

When I first saw Fahrenheit 911 in the theatre, I liked it and mostly agreed with Michael Moore, but I thought he was going a bit overboard. However, as you say Cgirl a lot has happened since then, and now I agree with pretty much everything in the movie. And yeah it's not just Bush, but he does have responsibility as the president.

Sorry Michael Moore in my opinon should be called a tradior and shot, his half truths and lies made into a film is about as untrue and anti Ameican as one can get. He has been merely a trouble maker who has no agenda other than attacking others.

I think 1+1=2. So do many other people but it doesn't mean that I share their beliefs or values. And it doesn't mean that if we agree on something that we also agree on everything. I don't agree with the Bush administration but it doesn't mean that I agree with Kerry even if he agrees with some of what I believe. I would NEVER vote for bush (or Kerry for that matter) since as far as I'm concerned they are both professional liars on many fronts and they are un-American at best. Clinton was impeached for a sexual act which of course he deserved. But Bush pushed us into war on false pretenses and lies and as a result our troops are dying because of a lie, he leaks government secrets, takes away our liberties with his most unpatriotic PATRIOT ACT, listens to our conversations without court authorization, and most importantly calls our beloved Constitution "just a god damn piece of paper". Now I don't know about you, but as an Officer in the US military I'm sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. My Oath is NOT to the president and never was and I'm glad the founders of this great country had the foresight to craft an officer oath the way they did. Kudo's to all those highly respected generals for speaking out because they are the true patriots.

And let me also be clear, I don't agree with Congress either as they are just as much to blame. As far as I'm concerned they are a government for the corporations and by corporations. Almost all of them talk out of both sides of their mouths and very few actually speak the truth and fight for our rights as citizens (like Cynthia McKinney). They don't represent the average citizen.

Michael Moore made a movie, made some money off it, and if one likes one can bad mouth him. But that really doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that many of the points made in the movie are true and many points were proven over time and if you do some real digging you'd discover that MM barely scratched the surface.

9/11 of course sprouted many conspiracy theories and like always there will be a cult following to some of the most outrageous of theories http://www.planetquo.com/Loony-9-11-Conspiracy-Theories (this is really funny btw). Of course anyone that dares to question it is automatically labeled conspiracy nut and of course the real questions remain unanswered and unchallenged by the MSM. For example, why did WTC 7 collapse onto its own footprint and it wasn't even hit by a plane? A simple question that no one dares to openly address it in the MSM and if they do they're automatically ridiculed, labeled a conspiracy theorist, a nut, and baned from the media.

Cgirl you've sparked many deep feelings here. Like rickj I feel very strongly here and I do NOT intend to insult anyone on this board regardless of what they believe happened on 9/11.

Casey

There are a lot of emotions running high in this thread. Everyone has a right to his/her opinion, and that IS what this country was founded on, because that is a part of our freedom, and thank God for that! That is the one thing that they haven't quite taken away from us yet. I think there is a lot of people to blame in all of this, and I DO support our troops (just for the record I have an uncle in Iraq as we speak) but I support their lives and their well being, but not necessarily what they were sent over there to do. I do however think that is very wrong to protest at a military funeral. Those people gave their lives for this country, and it is not their fault that Bush sent us over there. May peace be with them and their families. What does everyone else think about protesting at funerals?

The nicest way to put it is that it would be "misguided". If it were a funeral to a loved one in the military then I would say that it is despicable.

I tell those protesters to leave the family alone and let them grieve in peace and if they really want to help then go protest in front of the white house, organize letter writing campaigns, call your senate/congress, vote them out.

Agreed...but look at all the anti-Bush sentiment this movie generated for no good reason.

If MM were truly eager to show the truth, he'd be bashing ALL the jokers who went along with the "let's go into Iraq" plan.

...but no, he would have us thinking the one who "disagreed after he agreed" would have lead our country better.

Despite that I think Bush has SCREWED UP BIG TIME, if I had to vote again, I'd still have to vote for him. Kerry is a waffling weasle that cannot be trusted as far as you can throw him.

"No good reason"?? Alerting the country that we have a president with questionable competence is not a good reason? While I agree, Moore's piece was biased and slanted, there was more than enough factual evidence to justify the airing of it.

I also find it interesting that you would trust Bush after all the proof of his lies and obfuscation yet not trust Kerry. What proof of Kerry's weasling makes him more of a weasel than Dubya has proven to be?


Sorry Michael Moore in my opinon should be called a tradior and shot, his half truths and lies made into a film is about as untrue and anti Ameican as one can get. He has been merley a trouble maker who has no agenda other than attacking others.

I love remarks like that. They are so easy to blast a hole through. Was John Adams a traitor for protesting the greed of King George? Who is more anti-american? Moore who exercised his right of free speech to expose the incompetence of our president or Chuck who would deny him that right by branding him a traitor?

I agree that Moore's piece was slanted and biased. What it did was present the facts and his conclusions based on those facts. Clearly (to me) his conclusions go a bit overboard. But the facts themselves are damning enough.

What does everyone else think about protesting at funerals?

That church group that has been protesting at funerals should have their religious status taken away from them. I am all for religious freedom, but their actions have NOTHING to do with religion. Their actions are totally political. To protest a war (even though it needs protesting) by attacking the victims of that war is reprehensible.

I agree with you, ScottGem!

Sorry about my previous answer. I confused the film you mention with another one.
In any case, I have noticed that many Americans feel that Bush blundered in relation to his war on Terrorism.

I typically stay out of American related threads as I don't always keep up with current US issues.

That being said, I do wish to comment on Fahrenheit 9/11 and specifically, Michael Moore.

Personally, I think Michael Moore is an arrogant jerk.

Why?

Many reasons:

1) This film is so biased. If he wanted to make a real documentary, fine, but not just one that is so one sided and full of propaganda. I don't much care for Bush and his policies, but I don't care for someone making such a huge propaganda piece against him either.

2) He gives backwards insults to Canada. Not in this one, but in another film documentary he made. He came up to Canada and perpetuated American stereotypes of Canadians. I found the rude and insulting.

3) In the 2004 US Election, I think he was in Massatuses, he thought he found a voting irregularity and that they weren't' following proper procedure, so he went running to the cameras and said “They are following procedures! ” And he seemed so gitty about it. Then it was proven they were and he had stuck his foot in his mouth. By this point, I didn't even like him.

I am sorry that Michael Moore insulted Canada, that is not right, however, I don't necessarily support ALL of his ideas, but I did agree with A LOT of the opinions in his "documentary" I do however think it should not have been labeled this, that probably is a little misleading as it was mostly opinions, not facts. I do think he is more right then wrong however.

Don't normally get involved with this sort of thing,being a Brit,but read cajalat's post about WTC7 not being hit by a plane,as a conspiracy theory? I remember seeing the news coverage via CNN,Fox,BBC,and from a UK TV team for Channel 4.CNN had live coverage as the second plane "hit".If the trade center mentioned was "demolished",by "other means",what sort of maniac in National government would/could authorise such an act?
Tonight on UK TV news channel BBC News 24,they showed a clip of Oliver Stone's forth coming movie,about the Twin Towers.Apparently,it is not finished yet,but is due for general release in August.It had,apparently,twenty minutes of "in-the-can" shown to critics at Cannes (where the Da Vinci Code was first shown).What the public will also make of this movie will be interesting,for all the wrong reasons.

1) This film is so biased. If he wanted to make a real documentary, fine, but not just one that is so one sided and full of propaganda. I don’t much care for Bush and his policies, but I don’t care for someone making such a huge propaganda piece against him either.I think he gives a nice counter to the Fox "News" Network which spouts Bush propoaganda 24/7.

I think he gives a nice counter to the Fox "News" Network which spouts Bush propoaganda 24/7.

Sorry Karma,
I meant to approve your post. I was in Sarasota a few miles away from Booker high school when Bush got the news of the WTC. I was on a side street the police blocked off when his motorcade went to the Sarasota Airport where Airforce One was patked less then a mile south of my house.
Sure the piece was slanted, but the facts were correct. The best the Right Wingers can do is compare Bushes actions to Clintons in the Oval Office.
Let's add them up. Clinton did a really stupid act while The Shrub orchestrated a really lethal one. 10,000 Iraqis and over 2,000 of our boys dead. And all this from a maqn that in world war 2 we would have termed "shirker". Bush shirked his military duty and then had the balls to strurt down the deck of a aircraft carrier dressed in a military costume crowing "mission accomplished". This was a slap in the face to every combat vet that saw service and one we will remember at election time. Peace! Tom

No probs Tom.

I think he gives a nice counter to the Fox "News" Network which spouts Bush propoaganda 24/7.

Lol.

Yeah, I agree that FOX News is just as bad.

Former CNN Crossfire Host, Tucker Carlson, and now Fox News guy is a putz. He is the bow-tie guy. Called Canada, "America's retard cousin". Plus, he has made numerous other partisan comments. Jon Stewart has a field day with him sometimes :)

Dont normally get involved with this sort of thing,being a Brit,but read cajalat's post about WTC7 not being hit by a plane,as a conspiracy theory? I remember seeing the news coverage via CNN,Fox,BBC,and from a UK tv team for Channel 4.CNN had live coverage as the second plane "hit".
Nez... I maybe misreading your post but WTC 1 and 2 were hit by planes. However, WTC 7 was not... yet it fell down onto its own footprint pretty much the same way a professionally demolished building does. The government claims that it was due to a small fire caused by debris from the collapse of WTC 1 or 2 (not sure). No one disputes that WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane. Of course you being from the UK and me from the US we do have a language barrier and it isn't unheard of that we've been known not to understand each other's broken english ;)

Your right cajalat,I was replying with my brain in neutral. :(
After I'd read all the posts,I was "lost",and agree with your post,which I replied too.As you say,it is language which is the problem.Doh.
Yes I do remember WTC7 coming down on TV,and seeing The Twin Towers hit by planes.Awful.

Visit is site for more accurate information.

..:: Reopen 9/11 - Catch the Real Terrorists ::.. (http://www.reopen911.org/)

Shortly after Sept 11th, over this side of the pond (UK) there was a televised discussion about the complete collapse of the buildings and it came out that rather than conventional building methods the floors of these building were only pinned at the corners. Hence as soon as the floor above hit the floor below the pins parted and down they came.

Looking at the video footage I reckon that those mysterious extra explosions could have been those pins parting - becase there was no flame or black smoke which would have followed an explosive charge.

I remember that their conclusion on damage blame was Al qaeda 40% - architects and Planning Officials 60% or something in that order.

On a brighter note - I actually heard your President pronounce Al Qaeda correctly. I wonder if he'll learn that "eye-rack" should be "ee-rack" before he retires on his poor pittance of a pension and laughs all the way to the bank. :D

1979 Iranian hostages

1983 Beirut barracks bombing

1985 Achille Lauro

1993 World Trade bombing

1996 khobar towers bombings

1998 Kenya and Tanzania Embassy bombings

2000 USS Cole bombing

9/11/01 WTC attacks

2002 Bali bombings

2004 Madrid train bombings

7 July 2005 London bombings


I wonder how Michael Moore explains these terorrist attacks?

Is it all President Bush's fault?

How do those that believe 9/11/01 was a government conspiracy explain all these events?

Is there no "war on terror?"

I was in Sarasota a few miles away from Booker high school when Bush got the news of the WTC. I was on a side street the police blocked off when his motorcade went to the Sarasota Airport where Airforce One was patked less then a mile south of my house.
Sure the piece was slanted, but the facts were correct. The best the Right Wingers can do is compare Bushes actions to Clintons in the Oval Office.
Let's add them up. Clinton did a really stupid act while The Shrub orchestrated a really lethal one. 10,000 Iraqis and over 2,000 of our boys dead. And all this from a maqn that in world war 2 we would have termed "shirker". Bush shirked his military duty and then had the balls to strurt down the deck of a aircraft carrier dressed in a military costume crowing "mission accomplished". This was a slap in the face to every combat vet that saw service and one we will remember at election time.

We still live in a capitalistic society and it is not against the law to invest and make money in case you forgot. I would be for nationalization of all resources and cut the profit out. No one is perfect in case you don't know that too. At least Moore does not send our troops in to be slaughtered in unwinable wars. By the way, I am neither Democrat or Republican in case you did not notice that too. I am for not voting at all, why give them the satisfaction that they are important?

If you don't vote then you can't criticize the current administration.

I think too few people use logic. Teleology gives logic to life while Causality asks, "Who started it," Telos asks where am I going and why? People like Michael Moore are simply detrimental to society.

I wonder how Michael Moore explains these terorrist attacks?

Is it all President Bush's fault?



He doesn't try. Your post is just as slanted as his documentary. His documentary was not about terrorism per se, but about the Bush administration's screw-ups. Did you actually see the film? He doesn't blame Bush for 9/11 only for the way he reacted to it.

People like Michael Moore are simply detrimental to society.I think it's great to have a different viewpoint offered. To NOT have the availability of differing viewpoints would be VERY detrimental to society.

I think it's great to have a different viewpoint offered. To NOT have the availability of differing viewpoints would be VERY detrimental to society.
Certainly the lack of free speech would be disaster…but from that it does not follow that his view is not detrimental. What you have introduced is a red herring, detracting from whether his view is, or is not detrimental.

His view isn't detrimental, no red herring intended.