|
I just watched Fahrenheit 911 (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| breakinbeats |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
What those people don't realize is that intertwined with all these "fiction and flaws" are actually indisputable truths regarding our present administration. If you choose to ignore the forests for the occasional fake tree, that's you're choice, but that doesn't take away from the existance of the forest.
|
Well said, Cheers. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
..... |
waaaaaaaaaay to much text :p sum it up :p |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
waaaaaaaaaay to much text :p sum it up :p |
lol i know
well basically it refutes michael moore's arguments and lists several contradictions/hypocrisy
If u loved the movie, i suggest you not read it...it will piss u off:rolleyes: :cool: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
lol i know
well basically it refutes michael moore's arguments and lists several contradictions/hypocrisy
If u loved the movie, i suggest you not read it...it will piss u off:rolleyes: :cool: |
People cannot merely love the movie just because it was well done? Did it not receive critical acclaim and, for the most part, good reviews across the nation (Ebert and Roper 2 thumbs up)? Did it not become the #1 box office seller over the weekend, a first for any documentary film in history?
I'm sure many people saw it because they don't suck on Bush's every words as Gospel, but didn't the movie fair well even in conservative towns?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/movies/28BOX.html
I personally think it's hilarious that these conservative groups are targetting Moore's film. All they are doing is giving him free promotion. Moore is, of course, rather thankful (hell I would be too if I were him):
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/06/...zz/index.html#0
Kinda eerily familiar to Faux News' attempts to sue Franken on his book's title. Some things should just be left alone...
Oh, since you think it appropriate to respond with a long rant from someone else (albeit a leftist, though he's always supported Bush's Iraqi agenda), I suppose it should be appropriate to respond to your ranting response with a refutation from someone else. And I even gave the courtesy to show you where I found it (because you did not -though I already read Chris' commentary from Slate.com):
| quote: | Saturday, June 26, 2004
A Moderately Liberal Response to "Unfairenheit 9/11"
I had read the article entitled Unfairenheit 9/11 by Christopher Hitchens before seeing the movie last night with the intention of rereading it afterwards to temper my view of both sides of this debate. I'm not a Moore apologist, but I do admit to having a slight slant in his favor. That's all I think I need to divulge for now, my responses should be placed in that context.
Here's my response to some of the quotes taken out of the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell."
This is admittedly a very damaging statement, but extending the principal of innocent until proven guilty to Moore, it's hard to dispute it without a transcript or other independent confirmation. In absence of a transcript, I remind readers that this has to be taken purely at Hitchens' word, and by the tone of the rest of the article I don't know if Hitchens can be considered entirely objective. I did a Google search for "Hitchens Moore Telluride" and found this passage on a cached page (original page no longer available) regarding their interaction:
All of Telluride was buzzing about "Bowling for Columbine" the morning after the premiere. In a public conversation in Telluride's Elk Park, Nation columnist Christopher Hitchens did his best to roil Moore about his usage of Serbian film clips, his Ghandian stance on American foreign policy, his strategy of throwing a dozen theories in a kettle and stirring, but ended up being uncharacteristically mild.
"You're a man of the people and I'm a snob and an elitist," said Hitchens with a wave of his cigarette, letting Moore steal the show. Telluride --- whether because of the abundance of remarkable films or the limited oxygen at 10,000 feet -- seemed to have a calming effect on Hitchens.
I have to think that if Moore had defended Osama's rights, someone would have reported on it (e.g. Fox News).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)"
This is an inaccurate editorial comment deftly placed below 5 (mostly true) points outlining Moore's position. Moore makes no such insistence, and "divining" this from the dedication is purely subjective and intellectually dishonest. Moore goes out of his way to show sympathy for the fighting soldier, painting them as men doing their job because that's what their government asked them to do. Moore's beef is with the government's decision to go there in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film"
I really just don't get this entire passage. I'm not trying to be a smartass- if someone can explain it I'd appreciate it. I have read over the first sentence numerous times and can't think of a single contradiction Moore made to his argument that the Saudis are influential in (he did not imply not "run") U.S. policy. In fact, this whole passage smacks of black and white polarism that the current administration is so fond of. Case in point, there's a big distinction between opposing the decision to send any troops (pacifist) and then once the troops are sent arguing that not enough were sent to do the job (pragmatist). These are not contradictory stances, especially if, like most Americans initially against the war, one accepts the fact that the troops were committed and then focuses on what needs to be done to make them safe and help them be successful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment."
Strictly speaking, Clarke's testimony and interviews in other media outlets are used, not any statements made by Clarke directly to Moore. So claiming that he's "presented" as anything is subjective analysis of the underlying testimony or interview. This has nothing to do with Moore. Furthermore, taking responsibility for authorizing those flights still doesn't explain why they were allowed to happen in the first place. In other words, who cares how they happened, I want to know why they happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003."
This appears to either excuse or justify civilian casualties by suggesting that it's happened in every war and is therefore inevitable. I reject this notion. A few hundred civilian deaths is regrettable but probably not avoidable when invading a country. Some estimates place the civilian body count at 10,000 Iraqis. Civilian. That's 3 times the number of people killed in the WTC. Am I the only one that thinks that number is unacceptable? Honestly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitchens goes on to make a number of points arguing the following sentence: "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American", including:
"Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal...Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer."
"In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time"
"Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.)"
For the record, having read the article first I was on the lookout for this section of the film. I have to agree with Hitchens to some degree; Moore's wording is difficult to defend. Regardless, the above 3 arguments have weaknesses. For one, after WWII a number of Nazis escaped to South American countries with "friendly" (to Nazis) exportation rules. No one suggests we should have invaded those countries merely for harboring the worst killers of the 20th Century. As for the 2nd point, it doesn't dispute the "killed" part of Moore's statement, but it does make some ground against the "threatened" part. Still, was this before or after our invasion? The answer makes a difference. The third point is entirely without merit. Americans walk the streets of almost every country. Is any threat to the country they walk the streets of a threat to America?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all."
Again, black and white polarity. Few will argue that Saddam was good. I doubt even Moore believes this (he does not, as Hitchens says, imply it). The point is that there are plenty of "bad" men in this world with as cruel or crueler intentions than Saddam had with more ability to follow through on the threat. That the U.S. would select Saddam when North Korea is actively making nuclear material is indicative that either the administration is not aware of North Korea (obviously not true), was/is afraid of North Korea (I hope not), thought Saddam was a larger threat (their argument), or had other motives (Moore's argument). The last argument is the thrust of the film. In Moore's view, this wasn't about setting the Iraqi people free. There are plenty of oppressed people in the world that we could be working to set free (Cuba, China, Palestine to name a few). Moore argues that this was about Iraqi oil and settling up on old grudges, and any attempt to make the public think otherwise was a lie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many"
I don't see the contradiction here. They were too lax before 9/11 and are now too militant. If Moore were saying that they were simultaneously lax and militant, Hitchens would have a point. But the case Moore makes is that the administration, in the aftermath of September 11th, quickly realized they could use this to their advantage and then the pendulum swung the other way out of convenience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?)...Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters."
First of all, he appears to be justifying the "absurd" encounters by suggesting that if it happens to everyone then it's acceptable. But more importantly, I think he's missing the point. Again, these two concerns aren't contradictory. Homeland security is obviously underfunded. Given this assumption, the key is to use the resources we have as intelligently as we can. Stopping a woman carrying breast milk is not an intelligent use of resources. Allowing people to take matches on an airliner is not an intelligent use of resources. Period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar?"
Uh...Did you ever have a friend who didn't get along with someone that was coming over for dinner, so you politely hinted that he should leave? You'd expect the friend you asked to leave to still be your friend, no?
The Saudis fund terrorism. Don't you think it's reasonable to assume that they'd not want to be seen as supporting the killing of other Muslims by all the militant groups they support? His point is impotent.
"If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad?"
Uh...money (this is my interpretation, not addressed by Moore directly). The Bush family and friends network stands to make even more money from Iraq than they currently do from Saudi Arabia. The Bush family does not dictate foreign policy, even if W is the Commander-in-Chief, and I have to think that even W is smart enough to realize how far he can take the Saudi relationship without people openly calling for his impeachment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights....Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from?"
What? Huh? Is he arguing that blacks should go and die because that's what they fought for the right to do? Moore's point is about economic disparity, not about civil rights. The poor go fight wars for the rich because many of them have no alternative. Period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of."
I love how Hitchens criticizes Moore for pandering, yet he throws this gunslinger line in, ostensibly knowing who the audience for this article is. Is he inviting Moore to an intellectual debate or a wrestling match? Also, his tone suggests that perhaps he isn't all that happy with the way things went in their previous interaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective."
Actually, Moore doesn't intend to. He admitted to as much to John Stewart on the Daily Show on the 24th. In my opinion, his bias is no worse than the administration's conservative bias, and much less harmful to other countries' civilians. Furthermore, he's willing to admit he's biased. The administration should be so truthful.
http://vdibart.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
| hausmusic |
| This article is merely criticizing Moore by saying he is twisting facts and he's delirious. For all those who don’t understand correctly Moore has clearly said his movie is his OPINION, just as CNN is Bush's Opinion. If you’re that stupid that you get swayed by facts arranged in any particular order than I’m sure you will be greatly affected by any show that on TV. What do you have to say about the actual facts? NO WMD's false pretenses of war, Bush admin took Drawing's and satellite photos of trucks to the UN. You must be blind if you didn’t see how much they stressed going to war because of WMD's and ONLY THAT before the war began. They have yet to connect Sadaam to the so-called Al-Qaeda… the list goes on. Its not Leftist its facts… how else do you put it? |
|
|
| emander |
| Why hasn't Kerry come on line and endorsed the movie? Too liberal for him? The Green Party has appealed to Moore to rejoin their ranks. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by emander
Why hasn't Kerry come on line and endorsed the movie? Too liberal for him? The Green Party has appealed to Moore to rejoin their ranks. |
!?!?!?!:rolleyes: |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by hausmusic
This article is merely criticizing Moore by saying he is twisting facts and he's delirious. For all those who don’t understand correctly Moore has clearly said his movie is his OPINION, |
thats the problem, MM has stated it as his opinion...maybe in a private interview or magazine, BUt to the average ,________ american they take his movie as a factual news item. |
|
|
| 3xx3r7 |
| Just watched the movie. It is amazing to what length the rich people in this country will go for money. It is not like they don't have any. They already have tons. It is like a psychological disease to stash more billions, even if it means killing half of the world. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
thats the problem, MM has stated it as his opinion...maybe in a private interview or magazine, BUt to the average ,________ american they take his movie as a factual news item. |
Whereas the average, __________ Texan will completely discount it based on some opinioned article he read to the contrary:rolleyes: |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
Whereas the average, __________ Texan will completely discount it based on some opinioned article he read to the contrary:rolleyes: |
wow the "texan" argument
grow up please.
Both are opinionated and one stands on either side?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
As opposed to the American argument?
I would understand your distress if every issue addressed by MM was new and not public record before he produced this movie.
Here's a torrent link: BBC Documentary: Bush Family Fortunes
I can't expect anyone to download it, but it covers a lot of the details left out by MM. It's actually a good watch. Of course, it's one sided opinionated as well;) , but you may not be able to read an article on it... and you may have to form an original conclusion all by your lonesome:p ;) |
|
|
|
|
