Were any of Michael Moore's facts in "Fahrenheit 9/11" debunked?

[NewJeffCT]

I'm trying to put together an LTTE about Moore's upcoming documentary on the health care industry ("Sicko" is the name of the new movie)

But, the premise of my LTTE is that the RW media machine had a hissy fit over F9/11, but never really disproved any of Moore's facts.

However, I just want to try to verify my facts before making that claim.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Nope.

[LisaM]

2. Not that I know of. I frequently ask people that.

And they don't have an answer for me.

[rasputin1952]

45. I ask people why they are Repubicans, and the only answer I

get is, "my family has always voted Republican"...this is true...:D

[ceile]

3. kicking because I want to know, too.

[underpants]

4. I picked up on one

It's suck how much they have permeated things that I had to watch it trying to find faults that they might pick up-I found one.

He stated that Saddam never tried to kill or harm an American after the first Gulf War--I think it is well established that Saddam had some level of plans to try to assassinate Poppa Bush after he was out of office.

They did produce something called "Farenhype 9/11"-I have seen some of it on youtube but stopping watching because it was a useless piece of whining and childish fit throwing. No substance at all.

[Hissyspit]

6. That's NOT fairly well established. n/t

[Cha]

79. Right~ Just because bushits say it's

so..makes even less likely to be true.

Jeff..it'd be nice if you had time to write to Michael about that but ya probably don't.

[Mend]

9. the thought is not the act....it seemed to me that most of the movie was

splices of film...how could it all be lies when it is actual footage.

[bryant69]

The lies, insofar as they existed, would come in the narration and how the clips

were spliced together. What he leaves out.

I don't know that there are any lies in Farenheit 9/11 I think that movie was pretty rigerous. There are people who disagree with his assertions on why we invaded Afghanistan, though.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[hughee99]

17. Also, what about Iraqi troops shooting at

US (and British) planes patrolling the No-Fly zones.

[underpants]

23. Yeah ..that

Couple points on that

First of all one of the things that we didn't hear before the war was how awful the Iraqi airforce and air defense was. Apparently the Iranians really tore them apart back in that war.

Yeah they did fire on us but they were either so inept or they really didn't want to hit anything OR our technology/training is really that superior.

Anyway, one of the oddest things leading up to the war was that that was one thing that really WAS an act of war but it was never mentioned. I guess they figured that the public wouldn't get behind attacking the inept for sorta trying to hit one of our airplanes.

Yeah I think you could include that but as I said above....eh not so much

[hughee99]

30. Yes, Iraq's air force and SAM capabilities were comparatively

shitty, but if the discussion is about what Hussein tried to do (vs. what he was capable of doing) then you probably have to count this. No it's not much, but it is something.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Isn't that self defense?

Not exactly the same thing.

[hughee99]

27. Is it self-defense if you shoot at planes patrolling the no-fly zone?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Is shooting at war planes over your country...

an attack on American sovereignty?

Was he seconds away from landing paratroopers in Wyoming just like Red Dawn?

[hughee99]

33. If the statement is

that Hussein "never tried to kill or harm an American after the first Gulf War", would you consider that an accurate statement?

I don't think he needs to land paratroopers to make this statement untrue.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Maybe if it wasn't taken out of context.

Moore was debunking the widely spread notion that Saddam Hussein wanted to attack the United States.

This is the only way freepers could attack F9-11, via half-truths and taking things out of context.

[mmonk]

47. We would fly over trying to provoke their systems

to light up to track our planes and when they would, we'd strike at them. The sum essence is the Iraqi government could not go all the places they wanted to in their country or they would get hit.

[hughee99]

49. We absolutely would

We would strike at them and try to kill or harm them. I understand what Moore's overall point was, that Iraq didn't pose a threat to America or the American people, and I agree with that, but the wording is open to interpretation and I think that's the point of the disagreements.

[madeline_con]

95. But they wanted to bomb Kurdish areas.

Wasn't that the idea behind the No Fly Zones, to stop the bombing?

[Sir Jeffrey]

55. It is if the No-fly zones are illegal...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm

"However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution."

[hughee99]

58. So it wouldn't be 100% accurate to say

that Hussein never tried to kill or harm an American after the first Gulf War, since he did try to harm or kill pilots who were working in the illegal no fly zones. The fact that he may have been justified, would excuse, but doesn't negate his actions. It's about wording and context, and in the case of almost anything that's not written in legalese, it's open to some interpretation. One side may say that the context is unclear, and parses the statements very literal meaning. The other side may say that the context is clear, and give a statement meaning that it may not literally translate to.

I understand what Moore is saying, and his overall points, but I also understand how this can be misunderstood by those who are looking for a reason to disagree with him. I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, or with Moore's work, but I have to admit that the way Moore presents information can lead to people inferring things that he may or may not have intended.

[Sir Jeffrey]

64. Maybe I shouldn't post this...

but I am pretty sure I know how Moore generates so much damned controversy. He gets his facts in line completely for whatever project he is working on, then he fudges on a few very minor facts on purpose to generate media hype and to get Republicans acting like frothing idiots. One of the ways he does this is by taking certain liberties with definitions that could be interpreted different ways. In some cases, it leads people to infer something a bit different than they should. It also gets people researching the stuff on their own. It is shady but it works for him.

Now for what we're discussing...here is the exact quote from F911:

"On March 19th, 2003, George W. Bush and the United States military invaded Iraq, which had never attacked or threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen."

Now your statement:

"So it wouldn't be 100% accurate to say that Hussein never tried to kill or harm an American after the first Gulf War..."

You aren't saying the same thing that Moore said in the film. The legal definition of "murder" is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Killing someone in a war or other military action is not murder. If Moore had said what you said, of course it would be wrong. US military personnel were killed in the Gulf War and during the enforcement of the no-fly zone.

Under international law, all states have the right to repel foreign aggressors. Moore is taking the position that the no-fly zones were illegal, which they were, and therefore any actions taken by the Iraqi govt in response to enforcement of them would be legal. In other words,an American pilot shot down and killed while patrolling the no-fly zone would have been "killed", not "murdered".

[hughee99]

67. I apologize...

I haven't seen the movie in a while, and was going off the statement made in the original post I was responding to (assuming, incorrectly, that it was accurate)

[Ghost in the Machine]

75. Very nice response. Thank you. Great summation, and educational too.

:thumbsup:

[hfojvt]

108. another key to that statement

is that, in real time, on March 16, 2003, another nation had murdered an American citizen. That nation was Israel and the citizen was Rachel Corrie.

[Toots]

101. Who made it a no-fly zone, the UN certainly did not?

It was created by the USA and the USA only. There is no reason why a country can not defend itself from an aggressor nation. Iraq did not ever do anything that was not directly related to National Defense. I believe the Bush* assassanation plot as much as the babies being thrown from the incubators or the "Huge" build-up of Iraqi forces on the Saudi border......LIES.......

[Old and In the Way]

38. Were they shoot SAM's? Or painting the planes?

I know they turned on their radar occasionally which is a belligerent act, but I didn't know they actually launched missles. I don't think that really changes the point that Moore was making.

[hughee99]

44. My understanding was that the painting was more common

but there were certainly some incidents of shooting SAMs as well. I guess what I'm sort of getting at in a roundabout way, is that the context can be open to interpretation. Someone can make a statement that by one interpretation is accurate but by another is not. Those who are sympathetic with Moore's point of view understand that when he says Hussein never tried to kill or harm an American after the first Gulf War, he's talking about how he didn't pose a threat to America as a nation or a people. Those who are not sympathetic would say that firing on American planes is an attempt to kill or harm "an American", and therefore this statement is false (or a lie, as they would put it).

Moore could, very literally, say exactly what he means in very precise terms, if he wanted to, but then it would sound like a bunch of lawyer speak, and that wouldn't make for a very interesting narrative for the movie. We, for the most part, understand the point he is making, the freepers (and not surprisingly) don't understand what he means, and parse his words differently.

[conscious evolution]

63. The Iraqis never fired on US aircraft.

All they ever did was turn on the fire control radars.Every time they did that they got a wild weasel up their ass.

[hughee99]

66. So these reports are not accurate?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1032395

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/iraq2.htm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/09/us.iraq/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq531.htm

http://www.iraqjournal.org/journals/021202.html

[conscious evolution]

69. I stand corrected

[waiting for hope]

28. Didn't Dick Morris do that one?

What a f**king loser - can't cut it with the Clinton's, so now he's pitching hard balls for Fox and all the RW nut jobs.

[H2O Man]

65. Respectfully disagree.

I do not think that it was "well established" that Saddam ever had any plans to try to assassinate Bush the Elder.

[Old Smokey]

5. no

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Anyone tried Snopes?

Just askin' . . . .

[MisterP]

72. that's actually the reason they won't let anyone cache their site now...

[NMDemDist2]

8. he did a bit of creative editing to make his point

I love the guy, but there was definitely an agenda there. maybe not flat out lies, but some things got a pretty hard spin

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

[Bridget Burke]

26. Filmmakers often "edit".....

In fact, all of them do.

One exception: Andy Warhol's "Empire." http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/art/10422/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

32. Some of these items get a pretty hard spin

"58. In Fahrenheit, Moore claims to support the troops. But in fact, he supports the enemy in Iraq -- the coalition of Saddam loyalists, al-Qaeda operatives and terrorists controlled by Iran or Syria -- who are united in their desire to murder Iraqis, and to destroy any possibility of democracy in Iraq."

In #45, this guy claims that "military casualties {in Iraq} have far outnumbered civilian." Really?

Also, one of Moore's "deceits" (#59) is that Hezbollah wanted to help distribute the completed film in Syria.

But really, I'm not sure that I expected anything better from a contributor to the National Review/analyst for the Cato Institute.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Nope. Don't think so, but...

... I believe that some of them were mischaracterized and then debunked, the classic right-wing trick in the spirit of suggesting that Al Gore said he invented the Internet.

[BuyingThyme]

11. Doesn't matter. Pukes are so stupid that they only have to be told

it was debunked. No evidence necessary in Pukeland.

[MorningGlow]

12. MM employed lots of researchers and lots of lawyers

Had them all go through F 9/11 with a fine-tooth comb to make sure everything in it was accurate--because he expected the conservative goons to try to take him apart. I think I read about it on his Web site--maybe it's still on there (haven't visited in a while).

[Balbus]

13. Depends on who you ask.

If you search, you'll find many, many websites that claim to debunk many of his statements. And you'll also find many, many websites that claim all his facts are solid.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. no

[YOY]

15. I'm not a huge Moore fan...I find his shmultzy approach sometimes belittleing the actual situation

but I also find the ire and anger that he sparks to be well worth tolerating that shmultz. Good on him!

[Hissyspit]

16. Did someone say "hissy fit" ?!

[NewJeffCT]

41. Yes

I've used those words a few times over the past few weeks on here. I think you posted the same image back then, too.


:evilgrin:

[Hissyspit]

71. I'm sorry, NewJeffCT

It's a sickness. I just can't stop.

[enki23]

18. not in any serious way.

the purported debunkings focus overwhelmingly on trivia, nearly all of which would do nothing to change the argument if it were altered. now, of course, everyone puts their own interpretation, feel, whatever onto the facts at hand. (bush was simply being brave for the children at the 9/11 reading bit, there's nothing whatsoever untoward about the bush family's close association with the saudi royal family, so stop saying that, etc.)

truth is, he didn't really make many extraordinary claims in the movie. for the most part, the actual stubstance of the film is (or should be) pretty uncontroversial. and there was very, very little of any substance that was truly wrong, from anything i'd been able to ferret out.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

19. That 20 seconds in which he showed kids in Baghdad peacefully flying kites

or sliding down slides in retrospect was completely accurate. I remember the right-wing nuts yelling loudly about that. Moore's film just a couple of quick scenes meant to make the statement that Baghdad was relatively peaceful before our invasion and occupation. And now we know that Baghdad WAS relatively peaceful before our invasion and occupation.

There was a terrific television show called "Bridge To Baghdad" that I saw on FSTV just 2 weeks before the war. It consisted of several Iraqi teens who communicated via satellite with New York teens and talked about their lives, along with video footage showing their lives. The Iraqi teens were like any teens in the West, girls with Western fashions who didn't wear veils, boys who were playing heavy-metal rock in a rock-and-roll band, young people eating and drinking at bistros and discussing politics.

Not one single American cable or network television station wanted to carry that wonderful program showing Iraqi teens as normal people leading peaceful lives in the lead up to war except for FSTV and LINK TV.

[sandnsea]

25. That's one scene that was not accurate

The only objection I had to the film. Unless you don't care about the poverty in Saddam City and all the political prisoners. I think people still don't understand that there was one world for the Sunnis, and another for the Kurds and Shiites.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

37. It was completely accurate - they were real scenes

Your statement about poverty is irrelevant. Michael Moore didn't depict wealth in Baghdad. A kid flying a kite in a slum or sliding down a slide has nothing to do with poverty in a Baghdad slum or wealth in a wealthy neighborhood. It was neutral on that issue. What it did say, however, was that there was largely civil calm before the invasion.

How you can extract the notion that Michael Moore was talking about political prisoners or poverty from 20 seconds of footage of kids flying kites is amazing to me. It was amazing when Freepers made the same argument when Moore's film came out. What that scene contrasts with is the shock and awe of the U.S. invasion. And now, if Michael Moore made the film, he would not only show images of shock and awe after the kite flying scene, he would be showing the daily suicide bombings and the continuing erosion of the infrastructure.

No, the few seconds of the kite flying scene and the slide scene were not used in the film to comment on wealth or the Sunni-Shiite rift. It was used to contrast the relative civil calm before the war and the complete absence of calm since the war and occupation. Even Shiites in Iraq note that they could walk the streets of Baghdad before the war and they could attend the university without being in fear of their lives. I'm afraid that even the natives disagree with you.

[sandnsea]

60. Flying a kite = peace and prosperity

In your world I guess.

Baghdad was obviously more peaceful than it is now.

It was not the completely joyous place he tried to portray. The reason the poverty in Saddam City matters is because it was poverty due to bigotry - just like New Orleans. Those kids would grow up to end up in Saddam's prisons. Just like in New Orleans. That's no excuse to invade, but there were a lot of human rights abuses in Iraq and it is wrong to deny it - and I don't trust Iraqis who deny it either. I've seen that many who do are either Sunni's or wealthy individuals who don't care about the poor anymore than they do here.

Being free to walk down the street or go to school - as long as you don't say anything about your missing son or uncle - is not freedom.

[ljm2002]

74. You say, "It was not the completely joyous place..."

"...he tried to portray."

I think that is unfair. If Michael Moore showed 2 minutes or so of families at a park having fun in the outdoors, and a wedding celebration, like families all over the world will do, how does that translate into him trying to show Baghdad as a completely idyllic place? I thought he conveyed the common humanity of those whose lives were soon to be so brutalized by Shock and Awe, and its aftermath that continues to worsen to this day.

Now before you say "but he could have included more about how Baghdad really was, in a Big Picture kind of way": that is not the movie he was making. He was not making a comparative-government or comparative-civilization movie; rather, he was making a movie about how we selected the wrong president and illegally invaded and occupied a sovereign nation that was no threat whatsoever to us at the time -- as well as the inherently dishonest reasons we are there, and the inherent insanity of war, and its corrupting effect on those who engage in it. If he wanted to start with a few minutes of Iraqis going about their lives, I viewed it as a tribute to the Iraqis who had already suffered so much by the time this film was made. To me, seeing those people was a reminder of what really is at stake when our generals contemplate campaigns such as the infamous, illegal "Shock and Awe" that rained down on the people of Baghdad.

Anyway -- no flaming intended, we all see things differently. It's just that ... I'm right. :evilgrin:

[sandnsea]

76. No, that was a small segment of the population

It wasn't honest. It didn't tell the story of the Kurds or Shiites. He could have made that movie without distorting the reality for the majority of the population. The weddings and children playing was the story of the Sunni and Ba'athist minority. That was a very powerful moment and gave the impression of innocence, that we invaded a country with a government that was completely innocent - and it just wasn't.

[ljm2002]

82. Well we just disagree...

...that's all. Yes his movie had an agenda. He gets to advance his agenda in his own movie. One can talk until the end of time about all the things that are not in that movie, or any other movie for that matter. After all, there are an infinite number of things that are not included in any given movie, or novel, or what have you.

You think he should have done something to round out the political picture of Iraq, I think he was trying to humanize the Iraqis. You say potayto, I say potahto. :-)

[sandnsea]

91. He was manipulating people's emotional response

And while he has a right to do that since it's his movie - I also have a right to call him on it because that particular manipulation was a misrepresentation of ALL the people of Iraq.

It would be like al qaeda convincing suicide bombers it's okay to blow up Americans because they're all fuckheads like Dick Cheney. It's an inaccurate representation, what I call a lie.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

107. We don't know who those children were

According to the film, we don't know whether the children were Sunnis, Baathists, Shiites, Sadrists, Turkumen, Kurds, Christians or some other minority. We don't know if their fathers were in prison, working as civil servants, in the military, in a militia and opposed to Saddam, or anything else about them.

Images on the screen have a meaning. Children were chosen to be shown at play. Children in the absolute, without knowledge of their political status or wealth. Children are the most vulnerable. In the next scene, we saw bombing. The suggestion was that children were perhaps under those bombs. Now, we know that at least 650,000 civilians have died in Iraq. I think the message was very effective and honest. How else could Michael Moore, in that 20 seconds of screen time, show his displeasure for the broadscale and indiscriminate killing of civilians due to Bush's war?

If Michael Moore had wished to make a statement about Iraqi politics and to distort it, he would have chosen to show families driving nice automobiles, women wearing Western fashions including short dresses and without veils. Iraqis cheering for Saddam. Michael Moore didn't choose to show any of that.

The image of children is of children in the absolute. It is the language of film. The next images of bombs greatly disturbs that image of children living their lives as children might be shown anywhere on earth.

I still continue to shake my head at people who want to distort Michael Moore's images for the sake of a political, economic, and social statement about the internal affairs of Iraq that Michael Moore never made. They are the misrepresenters. His critics are using this simply to advance their own agenda, that the war was justified because Saddam was a bad man. By clearly leaving out any discussion of conditions in pre-war Iraq, Michael Moore's statement in the film was that Iraq's internal affairs were none of our business and certainly not a justification for war.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

105. Sorry - but complete an utter BS on your part

That 20 seconds of screen time showing a kid flying a kite and a kid sliding down a slide was immediately contrasted in the movie with a cut to the bombing of downtown Baghdad by the US military.

Movie making, especially documentary filmmaking is a language. When you contrast civil peace with bombing and destruction, the message is that before the invasion there was civil peace and after it there was destruction. Nothing more - nothing less. A kid flying a kite is not a statement that Iraq has total freedom. It is not a statement that Saddam is a good man. It is not a statement about poverty in Iraq. It is not a statement about human rights. It is simply a statement about kids flying kites one moment and then the next moment they are being bombed.

What you want is ANOTHER MOVIE to be made. You want a film about how Saddam is a bad man. Michael Moore did not touch on that subject. His film involved strictly a study of why the Iraq war was a stupid idea by Bush. That scene of a kid flying a kite and another one sliding down a slide was not a comment on Saddam Hussein, not a comment on poverty in Iraq, not a comment on the struggle between Shiites and Sunnis. In fact we don't know whether the kid sliding down a slide or flying a kite was a Shiite OR Sunni and for you to suggest that you know they would end up in one of Saddam's prisons based on 20 seconds of footage is utterly preposterous. You are the one attributing false information that isn't represented on the screen. Who is being dishonest here, you or Michael Moore? Those scenes are strictly used to show relative peace in Iraq pre-war, and destruction and chaos after the US went in. Nothing less, nothing more.

Again, you wanted a different film, one that never was the focus of Michael Moore's vision. You wanted a film showing prejudice in Iraq, poverty, human rights abuses, etc. You should make that film. Fahrenheit 911 never pretended to offer a commentary on the political and historical context internal to Iraq. That 20 seconds on the screen of a kid flying a kite and sliding down a slide was meant by the filmmaker to contrast the fact that Iraq enjoyed civil calm one moment and complete chaos and destruction the other as a result of our war. OUR WAR. That is the language of filmmaking at work and there's absolutely nothing dishonest about it. You want a film showing how Saddam was a bad man, one that went beyond Michael Moore's focus? You should then make one, but don't expect Michael Moore to show everything in a documentary that narrowly is focused on the propriety of this war. I cannot believe you can't comprehend that and that Michael Moore's critics can't comprehend it either.

[sandnsea]

115. There wasn't "civil peace"

My entire point. Those are your words so I didn't misrepresent the scene at all. The only "civil peace" in Iraq was for those loyal to Saddam.

[bobbolink]

48. As opposed to the US, where the "truth" about poverty is shown all the time?

[sandnsea]

61. Which has what to do with Iraq?

Our media lies. Michael Moore lied. How does that help anything?

:shrug:

[bobbolink]

77. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

"Michael Moore lied"

:rofl:

That tells me all I need to know. Thank you.

[sandnsea]

93. See #92

Snorting and scoffing doesn't make you any more right than it makes Rush Limbaugh when he does it.

[Bjorn Against]

88. When did Michael Moore lie?

You can suggest those images of the kids playing did not show the whole story (and they were never intended to), but unless Michael Moore doctored them they are certainly not lies.

I think Moore meant that scene as a commentary on the Iraqi people, not on Saddam. Michael Moore never claimed Saddam was a great human rights champion, not in the scene you reference or any other for that matter.

If you were to see a scene of kids playing on the streets of America would you automatically assume that the filmmaker was really putting out a message that George Bush must have great respect for human rights? Of course not, to tie kids playing outside with the human rights record of the person running the country would be ridiculous. Moore wasn't commenting on Saddam Hussein, he was commenting on the Iraqi people.

[sandnsea]

92. A misrepresentation is a lie

As I said above, it would be like al qaeda convincing suicide bombers it's okay to blow up Americans because they're all fuckheads like Dick Cheney. It's an inaccurate representation, what I call a lie. It was wrong when Bush misrepresented Saddam as being connected to al qaeda terrorists, even though he did pay Palestinian bombers. It is equally wrong for Michael Moore to misrepresent the situation in Iraq as he did in those particular scenes. It just wasn't true, life wasn't like that for the entire country.

[Bjorn Against]

96. Are you saying Iraqi's aren't ordinary people?

Yes, kids were able to play even in Saddam Hussein's regime. Michael Moore was not misrepresenting anything, he was portraying Iraqis as being ordinary people in those scenes. He was reminding us that Saddam Hussein was not the only person in Iraq. He was doing what every reporter should have been doing, he was shown the lives of everyday ordinary Iraqis. He was showing the ones who have never harmed anyone out having a good time, and reminding us that war could take those good times away from them.

That scene was not about Saddam Hussein, and to suggest that it is is misrepresenting Moore's work.

On edit: And I must ask you to back up one of your points as well. You said "It would be like al qaeda convincing suicide bombers it's okay to blow up Americans because they're all fuckheads like Dick Cheney." Where did Michael Moore ever say it was okay for suicide bombers to blow up Americans, much less try to convince Al Qaeda to do it?

[sandnsea]

98. With that subject line

And your edit - I'm not even going to bother to respond. You must have taken lessons from Michael Moore himself, to so badly misrepresent what I said.

See ya.

[Bjorn Against]

99. I did not misrepresent anything I quoted you directly.

Again here is what you said, "As I said above, it would be like al qaeda convincing suicide bombers it's okay to blow up Americans because they're all fuckheads like Dick Cheney." Michael Moore never said anything of that sort in the scene you were referring to, in fact his message was the complete opposite. He was telling us it was NOT okay to bomb Iraqis just because they were led by Saddam Hussein.

You can't back up that statement so I am not surprised you won't respond.

[sandnsea]

104. "like"

I never said Michael Moore said that. That isn't what that sentence means. I'm sorry you can't read.

[Bjorn Against]

109. I can read, now explain how showing kids playing is like convincing suicide bombers to kill

Moore's scene is telling people that bombing innocents is wrong, yet you are trying to compare it to telling people that bombing is right.

I can read, but you can not back up that extremely bad comparison. Moore is saying the exact opposite of what you say it is "like" he is saying.

[justiceischeap]

112. While the two of you go back and forth about misrepresentation

What I'm more concerned about is whether or not those kids are still alive and if that park is still standing. I'd say the odds are stacked against it.

There are bigger issues at stake than whether MM misrepresented an ENTIRE nation of people with 20 seconds worth of footage. I think it's ironic that prior to this war, people were screaming bloody murder about the embargos and children starving in Iraq. Moore uses 20 seconds worth of footage to show, IMO, who will be hurt most by this war, that being children and the more important debate is being lost.

As far as the issue of misrepresentation: Does that 20 seconds worth of footage negate the entire message of the movie? No, it doesn't. Does it negate the validity of the majority of the film? Hell no. If that's all you have to hang your hat on then I'd say he did a pretty damn good job.

[sandnsea]

113. "only objection I had to the film"

Which I said in my first post, and, of course, the hyperventilators completely ignored.

Michael Moore didn't portray the starving children you mention, or the starving children from the separatist policies, or the starving children whose fathers were political prisoners, etc.

He portrayed happy children and families, which just wasn't the case for the majority of Iraqi's. Recognizing that many people *could* have been better off with Saddam out of power - does not equate to supporting a military operation to take him out of power. I don't like the lie that that was a prosperous country where everybody was brimming with wealth, and free medicine and health care, and freedom of political beliefs, etc. It's such an incredible pile of shit and it IS perpetuated by the left quite regularly, including Michael Moore. That is what that scene represents and it's clear to anybody who has listened to the left for the last ten years.

[sandnsea]

114. Lies are lies

Our government is wrong, many people who support our govt is wrong and have profited. THEIR children would be the equivalent of the Iraqi children Michael Moore depicted. The only ones who had that kind of lifestyle in Iraq were children of those connected to Saddam's regime. To use those visuals to misportray the living conditions of the rest of the country - is wrong.

Just like using Dick Cheney to portray everybody in this country - would be wrong.

I never said anything about bombing Iraq.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

106. You are the one misrepresenting the scene of the kids

You are the one attributing facts to the scene that were not evident on the screen. You are the misrepresenter, not Michael Moore. Michael Moore's film offered no commentary one way or the other about the internal affairs of Iraq. It was irrelevant to his film as it is irrelevant to all thinking people. To argue that Michael Moore did not show that Saddam was a bad man and was misrepresented the internal situation in Iraq is to argue that the war might have been justified. It is to argue that there should have been a balancing of interests: saving the Iraqi people from Saddam or not getting invovled in a war of occupation in the Middle East. That is not the message of Fahrenheit 911. The entire point of Fahrenheit 911 was that the war was a mistake and that the internal affairs of Iraq are not relevant to that notion as far as America is concerned.

[The_Casual_Observer]

20. They would have loved to debunk the 7 minute pet goat event, wouldn't they?

But they can't. That was the crux of it.

[AndyA]

21. I think for the most part F 9/11 was accurate.

He may have taken a few liberties, but he is a film maker, and most of them do to make sure they get their point across.

I can say that when I went to see the movie, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the theatre was packed. At the end of the movie, there was a standing ovation and deafening applause.

Tulsa. Heart of the red zone. Things are changing.

[Warpy]

22. I believe he faked one newspaper shot

because the paper couldn't or wouldn't give him a copy.

Oh, and he cut one interview short during his "Congressmen, are your kids in the military?" sequence. I believe the Congressman had a NEPHEW in the military.

That's it. That's all the GOP was able to find "wrong" with the movie after weeks of going over it frame by frame. Pathetic.

Yet their blowhards continue to trumpet there were LIES in ALL HIS MOVIES!

Pathetic.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

31. I remember reading MM when they were attacking him.

He said he had the New Yorker Magazine's libel lawyers go over EVERYTHING in the movie with a fine toothed comb, THREE TIMES and they found nothing. Very expensive Manhattan lawyers. Experts.

So that's why the Reich wingers could find nothing wrong. Because there wasn't anything they could sue him over. Truth is an absolute defense to slander.

All they could do was whiiiiiiiinnnnnneeee!!

Call the WAAAHHHHMBULANCE!!

[VWolf]

35. Yes, one very important fact was debunked!

The book was titled "The Pet Goat", not "My Pet Goat"





Other than that, no.

[NewJeffCT]

40. That is something

that the RW would use for the next 10 years to as proof that Moore lies about everything.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. It's not the facts that are in question

It's the stringing together of facts in order to manipulate.

I can give you eight facts, and arrange them in such a way that you come to a completely false conclusion. You wouldn't be able to "debunk" any of my facts, but the overall implication would be false. That's what most of the right wing detractors of Michael Moore say about his argument. In some cases, I agree with them. In some cases, I don't.

But to think that argument is merely about having "correct facts" is a childish presumption of scientism that even working scientists don't hold.

[Bronyraurus]

39. He said that

Saudi Arabia owns 1/7 of the U.S.. It's not true.

[Liberal In Texas]

59. According to his site, he said between 6 and 7 PERCENT.

And has sources to back up his assertion.

[Bronyraurus]

70. Right, it's still bullshit

This is what it says on Moore's site:

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: In terms of investments on Wall Street, $860 billion is “roughly six or seven percent of America.”

* “With a total market capitalization exceeding $12 trillion, the NYSE Composite represents approximately 82 percent of the total U.S. market cap.” New York Stock Exchange News Release, “NYSE to Reintroduce Composite Index,” January 2, 2003. ($860 billion is about 7 percent of $12 trillion.)


No, it's 7 percent of the New York Stock Exchange's value. You know what's not listed on the New York Stock Exchange? Every small to mid-sized business in America, quite a few large ones, all of the real property in the country that isn't held publicly, all automobiles, boats, etc... Yet Moore, to make his big point, says that the Saudis own 6-7% of the country. It's bullshit.

Edit: not to mention the assets listed in the American Exchange and Nasdaq, which includes Microsoft and many other huge high-tech companies.

[Liberal In Texas]

89. First of all you said 1/7. That would be 14%.Totally wrong. And I might add also that is BULLSHIT.

"Others have said the investment is even more, as much as a trillion dollars on deposit in U.S. banks – an agreement worked out in the early 1980s by the Reagan administration, in yet another effort to get the Saudis to off-set the US budget deficit. The Saudis hold another trillion dollars or so in the US stock market.” Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil, p. 60, (Crown Publishers: New York, 2003).

You are mincing numbers. The point is that the Saudis have huge investment here. The NYSE is only a part. But a very major part.

The Saudis also have monies in the NASDAQ and other funds. Moore was only citing the Dow.

Stop calling "bullshit" until you can show some facts.

[Initech]

42. Anyone remember Ann Coulter's lame attempt at countering that movie?

It was called "Farenhype 9/11"... if you can find it, it's one of the most unintentionally hilarious movies I've ever seen!

[Digital]

43. If anyone is interested.....

A quick google search turned up this site http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm which lists in depth 59 deceits in the film. Basically how he edited together "snapshots" of truth to leave a false impression.

If you want to see why reich-wingers don't believe the film, this is where they are coming from.

[IndyOp]

50. Line by line Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11 - 6 sections...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

What people interpreted from the film is not necessarily what was said in the film. Kopel's 59 deceits are bull.

[NewJeffCT]

51. I think somebody on DailyKos

had debunked that one, point by point.

[bobbolink]

46. Why all the guessing? Moore had a very good fact piece on his website--did you look?

All the guessing here is .... :shrug:

Moore had quite a well-documented piece on the facts.

Why not check that, and post about it?

[IndyOp]

52. Line by line Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11 - 6 sections...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

They were very, very, very careful with their fact checking - equaling or exceeding what many might refer to as "journalists."

If people misinterpreted some aspects of the movie and then demonstrate that those misinterpretations are false - Moore can't do a damned thing about that.

[bobbolink]

53. Thank you! I didn't do the research for the OP-- it was all there, so no need for all the guessing.

If you feel up to it at some point, it would be good to post these, as a discussion before the release of SICKO.

Thanks again for your effort--I hope the OP bothers to read it!

[IndyOp]

54. I got lucky finding that link - I was at Moore's site reading

his letter - using a link from another thread and there was his line-by-line fact check.

:hi:

:hug:

[bobbolink]

56. I'm guessing he'll have much the same for SICKO. He's nothing if not thorough

on all his films!

It makes me tired to think about it. :)

You may have been "lucky", but you were looking in the right place, instead of guessing. :yourock:

I haven't looked at it since after F911 came out, but I remember it to be daunting in it's completeness. (If that's a word.) No wonder the RW doesn't want to touch it! :rofl:

Great find! :hug: :bounce: :hug:

[bobbolink]

57. related link in preparation for "SICKO"

Doeesn't seem to be much interest here in Universal SinglePayer Health Care, but here is a video that gives a good basic understanding, in preparation for watching SICKO, and letting people know of the alternatives:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x867908

A good k&r while you're there couldn't hoit.... :hi:

:hug:

[alphafemale]

62. I think some of the statements from the security guard talking about the embassy....

...were inaccurate.

Some other statements from interviews might have been too.

But I don't think MM is responsible for that.

No more than he's responsible for animal cruelty when that woman bashes the bunny on the head in "Roger and Me"

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

68. dunno, but his "I walked off the Nader campaign in 2000" tale was a lie

he campaigned with Ralph til the end, prior to his claim that he and "all of Ralph's advisors" waled off at the end.
I was at the rally two days before the election. So was Moore.
Moore wanting DNC support, so he fibbed a bit. Why not just say he made a mistake or changed his mind? Why be untruthful?

I have no prob w/ Moore supporting Kerry over Nader. But when he plays so loose with the facts, I begin to question his credibility as a spokesman for our side.

[Pastiche423]

73. When has MM ever stated

he was "a spokesman for our side"?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

78. i think it's kind of a given

i think it's dangerous to put him on a pedestal as many do, when he obviously has some pretty big self-serving motives.

[Pastiche423]

80. A given by whom?

Just because some people like his documentaries, doesn't mean they put him on a pedestal.

Btw, we need someone that has "pretty big self-serving motives" to wake the American citizens the fuck up.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

83. i'd say getting skybox seats w/ carter was pretty much a party elite endorsement

i tend to agree with moore's views. i just think he's an egomaniac and not entirely honest about his past positions and campaigns.

[Pastiche423]

84. lol!

That's it? He got skybox seats w/Carter, the most elite president ever?



Campaign? What campaign?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

85. uh...the 2000 campaign

go upthread.
is your memory that short?

[Pastiche423]

87. He was never a candidate

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

90. well duh

however he spent the entire year urging his fans to vote for nader, right up til the election.
then in 2004, he backtracked and said he left the nader campaign a month before the end, which wasn't true.

i think it's a little insulting to use revisionist history to distance yourself from something you urged everyone else to do.
he wanted to ingratiate himself with the DNC, so he blatantly lied about his 2000 role.

Had he simply admitted he supported Nader in 200o but wouldn't in '04, i'd have no problem with it.
It's the dishonesty of revising history that irritates me. And I don't trust him.

[Pastiche423]

97. Well then,

don't watch his documentaries.

Problem solved!

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

110. I don't

Most of the info in them isn't new. They're really only eye-opening to the unititated.
But if someone asks about his honesty, I'm going to give my two cents in reply.

[Canuckistanian]

81. Well, since his facts weren't "bunk"

Then it's not really possible to de-bunk them.

[E-Z-B]

86. Yes.

It was "The Pet Goat", not "My Pet Goat". :hi:

[Kelly Rupert]

94. The Wiki article treats the various controversies evenhandedly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy

[alittlelark]

116. I just read through it - it is in no way 'even handed'.

I would actually recommend that someone fix the R-wing slant that is clearly evident in the 'Controversy' section.

[Major Hogwash]

100. It won an academy award for best documentary, so I think it's safe to say it was mostly fact-based.

No matter what facts anyone may dispute in his film, it was a great film, nonetheless.

They don't give academy awards to documentaries that are full of crap.

[Toots]

102. Let's flip the coin, were any of the Republican view points debunked?

I guess a better way to put it is are there any reasons given by the Republicans (Bush* Cabal) that have turned out to be factual? I think that has more bearing on the USA and it's dealing with the world then on how Michael Moore makes movies...

[leftofthedial]

103. no

his alleged attempt to kill poppy bush would have been a service to America, not an attack.

[earth mom]

111. Nope-the freepers & thugs can't debunk any of it ...bwahaha on them!

:rofl: