It offers a rebuttal, and deservedly so, to Fahren[b]heit[/b] 9/11....one of the most influential parts of Fahren[b]hype[/b] 9/11 is when the families of dead soldiers that were featured in Fahren[b]heit[/b] 9/11, and others also featured, speak out against Moore's distortions of the facts and his methods of their own exploitation. Keep an open mind, do additional research before hasty conclusions are met...

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

[quote=gokada]It offers a rebuttal, and deservedly so, to Fahren[b]heit[/b] 9/11....one of the most influential parts of Fahren[b]hype[/b] 9/11 is when the families of dead soldiers that were featured in Fahren[b]heit[/b] 9/11, and others also featured, speak out against Moore's distortions of the facts and his methods of their own exploitation. Keep an open mind, do additional research before hasty conclusions are met...[/quote]

moore's had empirically verifiable data - video of gw, video of the death and destruction in iraq, families in mourning, much more, etc.

you could actually see and hear the shit unedited...it was indisuptable

the only thing you can dispute is the "overall" message and how those scenes were structured to convey the message..even then you'd have to ignore the cold hard reality of it to even do so

i looked at the back of hype 9/11 at blockbuster and saw nothing but pictures of politicians talking...if all they have to offer is a bunch of brainwashed idiots justifying the war, sounds like garbage to me...that includes brainwashed people trying to justify why their son or daugther is there in the first place

please tell me there is more too it than that...

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

scared go see this movie and try to realize that micheal moore is a scumbag trying to make a buck b/c he can use political views with his great skill to make a movie.

if this fat fuck would do things in a more positive manner, focusing about change, instead of trashing the past he could have a much greater effect.

farenhype is a great film , [b]as was moore's[/b], also i would recommend the other rebuttal film celciusXX(forget the nuumber). moore only gives his empirical data that he acn use for his benifit. he tends to leave out the other side. he also makes great use of cut and paste editing(go look at hestons speech in bowling where heston has about 4 outfits on but moore says its one speech). also he only uses selected quotes from people, rather than thier whole words.

the guy is a scumbag. plain and simple, he does not public service in his actions. all he does is stir up shit that should be left alone.

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

[quote=thesightless]scared go see this movie and try to realize that micheal moore is a scumbag trying to make a buck b/c he can use political views with his great skill to make a movie.

if this fat fuck would do things in a more positive manner, focusing about change, instead of trashing the past he could have a much greater effect.

farenhype is a great film , [b]as was moore's[/b], also i would recommend the other rebuttal film celciusXX(forget the nuumber). moore only gives his empirical data that he acn use for his benifit. he tends to leave out the other side. he also makes great use of cut and paste editing(go look at hestons speech in bowling where heston has about 4 outfits on but moore says its one speech). also he only uses selected quotes from people, rather than thier whole words.

the guy is a scumbag. plain and simple, he does not public service in his actions. all he does is stir up shit that should be left alone.[/quote]

i don't think he stirs up shit that should be left alone...guns are a problem, so is the war in iraq...it got people thinking...which is something that desperately needs to happen...so i don't think he is as bad as you say he is....which i do not understand at all...i just do no undertand your reasoning...what is your reasoning anyway??? all films use editing, cut and paste, etc....it was a very powerful film...i have yet to see much evidence to refute it...if all you have to say is that heston wore different outfits, then that is pretty weak...the message was clear...and if it wasn't something people could understand or relate to in there everyday lives then it would't have been so popular...what do you think they do on cnn?? america gobbles that up like crazy..but there is a lot of editing there...i don't see your point in that respect

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

[quote]

i don't think he stirs up shit that should be left alone...guns are a problem, so is the war in iraq...it got people thinking...which is something that desperately needs to happen...so i don't think he is as bad as you say he is....which i do not understand at all...i just do no undertand your reasoning...what is your reasoning anyway??? all films use editing, cut and paste, etc....it was a very powerful film...i have yet to see much evidence to refute it...if all you have to say is that heston wore different outfits, then that is pretty weak...the message was clear...and if it wasn't something people could understand or relate to in there everyday lives then it would't have been so popular...what do you think they do on cnn?? america gobbles that up like crazy..but there is a lot of editing there...i don't see your point in that respect[/quote]

Are you really sticking up for MM? :lol:

What a joke.

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

[quote=sacredawe78] all films use editing, cut and paste, etc....it was a very powerful film...i have yet to see much evidence to refute it...if all you have to say is that heston wore different outfits, then that is pretty weak...the message was clear...and if it wasn't something people could understand or relate to in there everyday lives then it would't have been so popular...what do you think they do on cnn?? america gobbles that up like crazy..but there is a lot of editing there...i don't see your point in that respect[/quote]

well, if you actually wanna be informed from people who arent fanatcis of his views, then go check out those 2 movies. every thing he says is rebuked in the same manner he attacks. all based in ""empirical data"", just the data he left out.

second, he uses cut a paste to create, rather than edit. are you seriously taking a message that incorporates different sentences from 4 speeches that are shuffeld around to sound like something else? thats comparable to this::

i HATE the fact that ALL MUSLIMS are being pigeon holed --real quote

to-

I HATE ALL MUSLIMS--- moores movie quote

also, half the people he has interviewed go back later on and claim that they were misquoted. something fishy there. go back to bowling and realize that there was a waiting period when he bought the gun(he was in the bank for about 3 hours the first day, noted on thier security cameras,,, and then had to go back after his gun liscence was verified, yeah he left that out, but came out in the banks lawsuit.) and the fact that he paid an undisclosed amount to the bank teller whom he made look like a moron.

i call these [b]moore facts[/b] b/c they seemed to have been left out of his movie.

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

[quote=thesightless][quote=sacredawe78] all films use editing, cut and paste, etc....it was a very powerful film...i have yet to see much evidence to refute it...if all you have to say is that heston wore different outfits, then that is pretty weak...the message was clear...and if it wasn't something people could understand or relate to in there everyday lives then it would't have been so popular...what do you think they do on cnn?? america gobbles that up like crazy..but there is a lot of editing there...i don't see your point in that respect[/quote]

well, if you actually wanna be informed from people who arent fanatcis of his views, then go check out those 2 movies. every thing he says is rebuked in the same manner he attacks. all based in ""empirical data"", just the data he left out.

second, he uses cut a paste to create, rather than edit. are you seriously taking a message that incorporates different sentences from 4 speeches that are shuffeld around to sound like something else? thats comparable to this::

i HATE the fact that ALL MUSLIMS are being pigeon holed --real quote

to-

I HATE ALL MUSLIMS--- moores movie quote

also, half the people he has interviewed go back later on and claim that they were misquoted. something fishy there. go back to bowling and realize that there was a waiting period when he bought the gun(he was in the bank for about 3 hours the first day, noted on thier security cameras,,, and then had to go back after his gun liscence was verified, yeah he left that out, but came out in the banks lawsuit.) and the fact that he paid an undisclosed amount to the bank teller whom he made look like a moron.

i call these [b]moore facts[/b] b/c they seemed to have been left out of his movie.[/quote]

where can i find more of this information...i will watch those movies, if i can bear anyone upholding conservative America...i will bear it so i can understand more of what you say

i liked moore's message because i felt that way before i saw it and i still do

what about george bush's quotes?? you cant deny they guy is a complete jackass...it didnt look like too much editing there to me

why didn't george bush go in front of the 9/11 commission?? does he think he is above the truth, what is there to hide

was that family in the film a lie?? i saw her supporting michael moore after the movie came out

what about the marine who quit?? i think he supported him after the movie as well

and the scenes from michigan with the army recruiters...i mean most of us went through that in high school...so its not bs

as far as bush's relation with the saudis and the bin ladens...there is so much there, regardless if some of it is over-exaggerated (which i am supposing is true) you cant deny how compelling it is

so what if it took michael moore three hours to get a gun rather than 30 minutes...who give a fuck...what kind of bullshit is that

did you ever stop and think that the conservative resources you may have used to uncover some of these things did some editing or tampering as well

even if things were chopped up to make a more powerful picture...i think it is good...people don't really understand what they are saying half the time, the implications involved...michael moore had to show things in a plain fashion

i will bear the burden of watching a conservative American argument...just so i can understand where you could possible be coming from...but i can tell you is that if all you have to say is a couple little things like that to refute things, they can't be all that great

just went to michaelmoore.com and there is a whole section of articulation on there to allow naysayers such as yourself sources for his material...check it out

Snicker The Moore bashers paragon of "truth", 'Bowling for Truth' has an entire section devoted to the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, and even lists it as NEW material. Please note that there was absolutely no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and Rumsfeld and Cheney have finally even admitted such: [url]http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/iraqalqaeda.htm[/url]

An excellent review of "Fahrenhype 9/11" by the editor of the Chicago Sun Times: [url]http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041028/ESSAYS/41028002/1023[/url]

The guy clearly has no bias for Moore, as he freely bashes him on several occasions, but he sees the absolute idiocy, name-calling, and pathetic talking heads brought in on this movie.

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

Is not the film I would like to see, cause to brutal for me,and who knows what is the truth

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

I haven't seen either of these films, but I've read plenty of reactions to both. It seems like films like are for those that refuse to think for themselves.

Those that hate George Bush love MM and his films because it gives them "proof" that he's a corrupt president, people who like GW hate MM and love films like Fahrenhype because they give "proof" that MM is a liar!

The truth is, these are political films - people in politics have an agenda and to back up their agenda they present "truths" in such a way that convinces people of their way of thinking! They are not lying, but they are presenting the part of the story that they are happy for the public to see. If MM's films were a pack of lies, there would be no need for controversy over them, no film company would have funded it, and if they had they'd have been sued for libel! MM presents the truth, but doesn't tell the whole story - Farenhype tells the other half of the story! Neither film will be lying, but they have an agenda to fulfill and they're only going to tell people what backs that up - I'm sure if you pushed him to it, there would be somethings GW had done that MM would agree with, at the same time, there will be other things GW has done that he sincerely regrets - but their not gonna tell the public about these things are they?!

Learn to think for yourselves and then the world won't need people like MM!

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

[quote=sacredawe78]

where can i find more of this information...i will watch those movies, if i can bear anyone upholding conservative America...i will bear it so i can understand more of what you say

[/quote]

thats the thing, it took moore over a week to actually get the gun, they did an ID check that he seemed to leave out of his version of what happened.

its not about upholding conservative america. its more about using your common sense. unfortunaetly it is gonna take more deaths to make people realize there are thigns you need to be ultra conservative on and things that need to be liberal.. security needs to be handeled by the ost conservative people while social policy, outside of education, should be handeled by the more liberals. as well as foreign policy. i recall the instance where the guy refused to give up his ID to airport security b/c he felt "infringed upon".. well you know what, if it keeps us all safer and prevents what happened , i will gladly offer up my ID. i have nothing to hide.

and as far as making a more powerful picture i could create one as well, (obviously not like moore) but dont claim the president is corrupt b/c moore gives selective facts, look at them all. haliburton ties to cheney are there, but most people dont know that only about 3-4 firms in the world can handle the work they were offered, they gave a cheaper price and were one of 2 firms based in countries that assisted in the war. also, people cry about bush and the fact that saudi investors were involved in his firm. last time i looked, upper ranking employees are solely responsible to the shareholders and localalities. i guess doing your job in the past is reaosn for future criticism.

i mean look at how clinton let things get outta hand domestically while just sufficing things abroad.(education, taxes, financial reporting, etc) i think he was worse b/c he bombed from afar, while the currernt pres at least is going to attempt to bring about a change towards democracy and setting up infrastructure. i mean, i was serving in the army under clinton and i backed him fully, but some of the shit we did was shadier than letting a country know we were coming, and staying. go look at military OP's in yugoslavia and bosnia.

the only other thign i beleive we need to be conservative on is criminal prosecution for repeat violent offenders and mostly rapists and murderers. we should not have to pay upwards of 1k a day to keep these scum alive in jail when they do the most dispicable acts(rape being worse than murder IMO) to others, ruining the victims lives, ending the victims lives, but we will all foot the bill to keep them alive and in prison with 3 square, shelter, health care, and excercise. when it costs 16.50 for a 45 pack of .22 caliber bullets. they forgo thier rights to civility when they deny others of those rights, violently.

on the more liberal things. stupid shit that repubs do that i have a vex over is things like generic perscriptions. go get em, if they have the same formula as the brand name, how are they different?

stem cell research. allow it, but dont let people sue for wrongful deaths when it goes wrong in testing, we need to see the viable options.

foreign policy, while im glad bush doesnt on behalf of the states, i damn glad they care about it. clinton did amazing things in that regard.(outside of his hit and run style attacks)

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

[quote=thesightless][quote=sacredawe78]

where can i find more of this information...i will watch those movies, if i can bear anyone upholding conservative America...i will bear it so i can understand more of what you say

[/quote]

thats the thing, it took moore over a week to actually get the gun, they did an ID check that he seemed to leave out of his version of what happened.

its not about upholding conservative america. its more about using your common sense. unfortunaetly it is gonna take more deaths to make people realize there are thigns you need to be ultra conservative on and things that need to be liberal.. security needs to be handeled by the ost conservative people while social policy, outside of education, should be handeled by the more liberals. as well as foreign policy. i recall the instance where the guy refused to give up his ID to airport security b/c he felt "infringed upon".. well you know what, if it keeps us all safer and prevents what happened , i will gladly offer up my ID. i have nothing to hide.

and as far as making a more powerful picture i could create one as well, (obviously not like moore) but dont claim the president is corrupt b/c moore gives selective facts, look at them all. haliburton ties to cheney are there, but most people dont know that only about 3-4 firms in the world can handle the work they were offered, they gave a cheaper price and were one of 2 firms based in countries that assisted in the war. also, people cry about bush and the fact that saudi investors were involved in his firm. last time i looked, upper ranking employees are solely responsible to the shareholders and localalities. i guess doing your job in the past is reaosn for future criticism.

i mean look at how clinton let things get outta hand domestically while just sufficing things abroad.(education, taxes, financial reporting, etc) i think he was worse b/c he bombed from afar, while the currernt pres at least is going to attempt to bring about a change towards democracy and setting up infrastructure. i mean, i was serving in the army under clinton and i backed him fully, but some of the shit we did was shadier than letting a country know we were coming, and staying. go look at military OP's in yugoslavia and bosnia.

the only other thign i beleive we need to be conservative on is criminal prosecution for repeat violent offenders and mostly rapists and murderers. we should not have to pay upwards of 1k a day to keep these scum alive in jail when they do the most dispicable acts(rape being worse than murder IMO) to others, ruining the victims lives, ending the victims lives, but we will all foot the bill to keep them alive and in prison with 3 square, shelter, health care, and excercise. when it costs 16.50 for a 45 pack of .22 caliber bullets. they forgo thier rights to civility when they deny others of those rights, violently.

on the more liberal things. stupid shit that repubs do that i have a vex over is things like generic perscriptions. go get em, if they have the same formula as the brand name, how are they different?

stem cell research. allow it, but dont let people sue for wrongful deaths when it goes wrong in testing, we need to see the viable options.

foreign policy, while im glad bush doesnt on behalf of the states, i damn glad they care about it. clinton did amazing things in that regard.(outside of his hit and run style attacks)[/quote]

what do you have to say about all of the evidence that lobsterclan and i have just presented to uphold michael moore's films?

are you just going to continue to ignore it?

after all that is what we were discussing

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

[quote=ian]I haven't seen either of these films, but I've read plenty of reactions to both. It seems like films like are for those that refuse to think for themselves.

Those that hate George Bush love MM and his films because it gives them "proof" that he's a corrupt president, people who like GW hate MM and love films like Fahrenhype because they give "proof" that MM is a liar!

The truth is, these are political films - people in politics have an agenda and to back up their agenda they present "truths" in such a way that convinces people of their way of thinking! They are not lying, but they are presenting the part of the story that they are happy for the public to see. If MM's films were a pack of lies, there would be no need for controversy over them, no film company would have funded it, and if they had they'd have been sued for libel! MM presents the truth, but doesn't tell the whole story - Farenhype tells the other half of the story! Neither film will be lying, but they have an agenda to fulfill and they're only going to tell people what backs that up - I'm sure if you pushed him to it, there would be somethings GW had done that MM would agree with, at the same time, there will be other things GW has done that he sincerely regrets - but their not gonna tell the public about these things are they?!

Learn to think for yourselves and then the world won't need people like MM![/quote]

im not a proponent for die hard subjectivism....that is way too typical

we need a moral agenda pal...that takes communication and a common goal...not a continual struggle with no goal, which is one excessively valuing subjectivism, relativism, individualism, capitalism, etc. leads to and has lead to in this culture a la the enlightenment

moore's do ahve truth to them, but not all of the truth.

The video clips he shows from real-time footage has truth to them, because they are reality. The way he makes the US out to be a fascist state in his cut-and-paste world, is way off the mark. If Bush was a fasicst, as Moore indeed makes him out to be in 9/11, Michael Moore would be hanging by a hook in mid-town Manhattan.

Do I need to explain? Print this out, take it home with you:

[url]http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf[/url]

cosmo... where've you been?

[quote=mixu]cosmo... where've you been?[/quote]

Busy as hell up here at work. Busy w/ the kid at home. Haven't really had time to get on much...

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

I WANNA print that put and glue it to his ceiling in his room so he can read it every night.

And just think, this man, Michael Moore, was givin the top seat next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention.

That shows you where that party is headed.

[quote=cosmo]The video clips he shows from real-time footage has truth to them, because they are reality. The way he makes the US out to be a fascist state in his cut-and-paste world, is way off the mark. If Bush was a fasicst, as Moore indeed makes him out to be in 9/11, Michael Moore would be hanging by a hook in mid-town Manhattan.

Do I need to explain? Print this out, take it home with you:

[url]http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf[/url][/quote]

ive read a few of these and most seem pretty trite buddy...there is no source either to support most of what is said on there, wheras michael moore sources all of his material

as far as what you mention above...im pretty sure michael moore is a hard core patriot...he loves america...in fact he is not nearly as radical as i would like, but i still appreciate what he has done

so i wouldnt say he is anti american, just very much anti Bush

i wish he along with all of you were more anti american...nationalism is for idiots

[quote=cosmo]And just think, this man, Michael Moore, was givin the top seat next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention.

That shows you where that party is headed.[/quote]

cant be any worse than george w bush and his cohorts...you cant get much lower

michael moore sure has. :roll:

Michael Moore = Least intriguing, least inspiring, least pleasant...the list goes on.

[url]http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=6895731&section=news[/url]

Michael Moore shold be hung for all the lies that he spit out and his money be given to the Iraq aid program.. He fooled the whole US population and they should want to deport him or something..

seriously that fat fuck deserves to be beaten. the shit he pulled with the NYFD widows and children was dispicable

[quote=thesightless]seriously that fat fuck deserves to be beaten. the shit he pulled with the NYFD widows and children was dispicable[/quote]

what are you talking about?

[quote=Civic_Zen]Michael Moore = Least intriguing, least inspiring, least pleasant...the list goes on.

[url]http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=6895731&section=news[/url][/quote]

I wish I was abhorred like that...then I'd know I was doing something right

What a stupid thing to follow

[quote=runningman]Michael Moore shold be hung for all the lies that he spit out and his money be given to the Iraq aid program.. He fooled the whole US population and they should want to deport him or something..[/quote]

He didn't fool anyone...he only used the propoganda originally covered in the media you all watch every day...he sources the material on his website

Why aren't you questing the media and their ability to show the truth?

I don't see you bashing them as you should

the media does suck. no ifs, ands or buts about it. there will always be extreme biased in media coverage swaying in both directions.

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

June 30 - In his new movie, ?Fahrenheit 9/11,? film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests ?have given? $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests, helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in the movie, ?who you gonna like? Who?s your Daddy??

But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore?s arithmetic-not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger?s book, ?House of Bush, House of Saud.? Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990?s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country?s military and National Guard. What?s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president?s father, George H.W. Bush.

Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this ?connection.? The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn?t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998-five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm?s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president?s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus. ?The figure is inaccurate and misleading,? said Ullman. ?The movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM.?

In light of the extraordinary box office success of ?Fahrenheit 9/11,? and its potential political impact, a rigorous analysis of the film?s assertions seems more than warranted. Indeed, Moore himself has invited the scrutiny. He has set up a Web site and ?war-room? to defend the claims in the movie-and attack his critics. (The war-room?s overseers are two veteran spin-doctors from the Clinton White House: Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani.) Moore also this week contended that the media was pounding away at him ?pretty hard? because ?they?re embarrassed. They?ve been outed as people who did not do their job.?

In response to inquiries from NEWSWEEK about the Carlyle issue, Lehane shot back this week with a volley of points: There were multiple Bush ?connections? to the Carlyle Group throughout the period of the Saudi contracts to BDM, Lehane noted in an e-mail, including the fact that the firm?s principals included James Baker (Secretary of State during the first Bush administration) and Richard Darman (the first Bush?s OMB chief). Moreover, George W. Bush himself had his own Carlyle Group link: between 1990 and 1994, he served on the board of another Carlyle-owned firm, Caterair, a now defunct airline catering firm.

But unmentioned in ?Fahrenheit/911,? or in the Lehane responses, is a considerable body of evidence that cuts the other way. The idea that the Carlyle Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of some loosely defined ?Bush Inc.? concern seems hard to defend. Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm?s senior advisors is Thomas ?Mack? McLarty, Bill Clinton?s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton?s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clinton?s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC. As for the president?s own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor-a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded. Moreover, says Ullman, Bush ?didn?t invest in the [Caterair] deal and he didn?t profit from it.? (The firm was a big money loser and was even cited by the campaign of Ann Richards, Bush?s 1994 gubernatorial opponent, as evidence of what a lousy businessman he was.)

Most importantly, the movie fails to show any evidence that Bush White House actually has intervened in any way to promote the interests of the Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the company?s interest was the cancellation of a $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system that had been developed for the U.S. Army (during the Clinton administration)-a move that had been foreshadowed by Bush?s own statements during the 2000 campaign saying he wanted a lighter and more mobile military. The Crusader was manufactured by United Defense, which had been wholly owned by Carlyle until it spun the company off in a public offering in October, 2001 (and profited to the tune of $237 million). Carlyle still owned 47 percent of the shares in the defense company at the time that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld-in the face of stiff congressional resistance-canceled the Crusader program the following year. These developments, like much else relevant to Carlyle, goes unmentioned in Moore?s movie.

None of this is to suggest that there aren?t legitimate questions that deserve to be asked about the influence that secretive firms like Carlyle have in Washington-not to mention the Saudis themselves (an issue that has been taken up repeatedly in our weekly Terror Watch columns.) Nor are we trying to say that ?Fahrenheit 9/11? isn?t a powerful and effective movie that raises a host of legitimate issues about President Bush?s response to the September 11 attacks, the climate of fear engendered by the war on terror and, most importantly, about the wisdom and horrific human toll of the war in Iraq.

But for all the reasonable points he makes, on more than a few occasions in the movie Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious political debate he wants to provoke.

Consider Moore?s handling of another conspiratorial claim: the idea that oil-company interest in building a pipeline through Afghanistan influenced early Bush administration policy regarding the Taliban. Moore raises the issue by stringing together two unrelated events. The first is that a delegation of Taliban leaders flew to Houston, Texas, in 1997 (?while George W. Bush was governor of Texas,? the movie helpfully points out) to meet with executives of Unocal, an oil company that was indeed interested in building a pipeline to carry natural gas from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan.

The second is that another Taliban emissary visited Washington in March, 2001 and got an audience at the State Department, leaving Moore to speculate that the Bush administration had gone soft on the protectors of Osama bin Laden because it was interested in promoting a pipeline deal. "Why on earth would the Bush administration allow a Taliban leader to visit the United States knowing that the Taliban were harboring the man who bombed the USS Cole and our African embassies?" Moore asks at one point.

This, as conspiracy theories go, is more than a stretch. Unocal?s interest in building the Afghan pipeline is well documented. Indeed, according to ?Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to Sept. 10., 2001,? the critically acclaimed book by Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll, Unocal executives met repeatedly with Clinton administration officials throughout the late 1990s in an effort to promote the project-in part by getting the U.S. government to take a more conciliatory approach to the Taliban. ?It was an easy time for an American oil executive to find an audience in the Clinton White House,? Coll writes on page 307 of his book. ?At the White House, [Unocal lobbyist Marty Miller] met regularly with Sheila Heslin, the director of energy issues at the National Security Council, whose suite next to the West Wing coursed with visitors from American oil firms. Miller found Heslin?very supportive of Unocal?s agenda in Afghanistan.?

Coll never suggests that the Clintonites? interest in the Unocal project was because of the corrupting influence of big oil. Clinton National Security Council advisor ?Berger, Heslin and their White House colleagues saw themselves engaged in a hardheaded synthesis of American commercial interests and national security goals,? he writes. ?They wanted to use the profit-making motives of American oil companies to thwart one of the country?s most determined enemies, Iran, and to contain the longer-term ambitions of a restless Russia.?

Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue-and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington. (Vice President Dick Cheney?s energy task force report in May, 2001, makes no reference to it.) There is no evidence that the Taliban envoy who visited Washington in March, 2001-and met with State Department and National Security Council officials-ever brought up the pipeline. Nor is there any evidence anybody in the Bush administration raised it with him. The envoy brought a letter to Bush offering negotiations to resolve the issue of what should be done with bin Laden. (A few weeks earlier, Taliban leader Mullah Omar had floated the idea of convening a tribunal of Islamic religious scholars to review the evidence against the Al Qaeda leader.) The Taliban offer was promptly shot down. ?We have not seen from the Taliban a proposal that would meet the requirements of the U.N. resolution to hand over Osama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice,? State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at the time.

The use of innuendo is rife through other critical passages of ?Fahrenheit 9/11.? The movie makes much of the president?s relationship with James R. Bath, a former member of his Texas Air National Guard who, like Bush, was suspended from flying at one point for failure to take a physical. The movie suggests that the White House blacked out a reference to Bath?s missed physical from his National Guard records not because of legal concerns over the Privacy Act but because it was trying to conceal the Bath connection-a presumed embarrassment because the Houston businessman had once been the U.S. money manager for the bin Laden family. After being hired by the bin Ladens to manager their money in Texas, Bath ?in turn,? the movie says, ?invested in George W. Bush.?

The investment in question is real: In the late 1970?s, Bath put up $50,000 into Bush?s Arbusto Energy, (one of a string of failed oil ventures by the president), giving Bath a 5 percent interest in the company. The implication seems to be that, years later, because of this link, Bush was somehow not as zealous about his determination to get bin Laden.

Leaving aside the fact that the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia?s biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism, the movie-which relied heavily on Unger?s book-fails to note the author?s conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything. The ?Bush-Bin Laden ?relationships? were indirect-two degrees of separation, perhaps-and at times have been overstated,? Unger writes in his book. While critics have charged that bin Laden money found its way into Arbusto through Bath, Unger notes that ?no hard evidence has ever been found to back up that charge? and Bath himself has adamantly denied it. ?One hundred percent of those funds (in Arbusto) were mine,? says Bath in a footnote on page 101 of Unger?s book. ?It was a purely personal investment.?

The innuendo is greatest, of course, in Moore?s dealings with the matter of the departing Saudis flown out of the United States in the days after the September 11 terror attacks. Much has already been written about these flights, especially the film?s implication that figures with possible knowledge of the terrorist attacks were allowed to leave the country without adequate FBI screening-a notion that has been essentially rejected by the 9/11 commission. The 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of them and asked many of them ?detailed questions." ?Nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country,? the commission stated. New information about a flight from Tampa, Florida late on Sept. 13 seems mostly a red herring: The flight didn?t take any Saudis out of the United States. It was a domestic flight to Lexington, Kentucky that took place after the Tampa airport had already reopened.

It is true that there are still some in the FBI who had questions about the flights-and wish more care had been taken to examine the passengers. But the film?s basic point-that the flights represented perhaps the supreme example of the Saudi government?s influence in the Bush White House-is almost impossible to defend. Why? Because while the film claims-correctly-that the ?White House? approved the flights, it fails to note who exactly in the White House did so. It wasn?t the president, or the vice president or anybody else supposedly corrupted by Saudi oil money. It was Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar who was a holdover from the Clinton administration and who has since turned into a fierce Bush critic. Clarke has publicly testified that he gave the greenlight-conditioned on FBI clearance. ?I thought the flights were correct,? Clarke told ABC News last week. ?The Saudis had reasonable fear that they might be the subject of vigilante attacks in the United States after 9/11. And there is no evidence even to this date that any of the people who left on those flights were people of interest to the FBI.? Like much else relevant to the issues Moore raises, Clarke?s reasons for approving the flights-and his thoughts on them today-won?t be found in ?Fahrenheit 9/11,? nor in any of the ample material now being churned out by the film-maker?s ?war room? to defend his provocative, if flawed, movie.

and by the way...what is it with you people and violence??

he should be "hung" "beaten" etc

I for one have also been told I should be "stoned" to death and that if I was to be met in person I would be "cut deep"

i tell you what, this is about the least progressive forum i frequent...and its really sad because it makes the electronic music community seem so fucking lame, unfortunately...even though i love the music

this community is not progressive at all in any way...i have noticed that for a long time...

to those of you using violence and empty threats continually...

you are very sad...and you are doing nothing to progress in any way

cosmo ? can you do a longer post next time? :roll:

[quote=mixu]cosmo ? can you do a longer post next time? :roll:[/quote]

Sure - I will keep that in mind next time..

That's at the attn of Sacredawe of course. To rebut Moore's so called facts and evidence.

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

scaredawe= mike moore?

me thinks so more and more every day.

go away if you hate what we are like. :evil: you are the first person to jump on others opinions with posts that have about a 10 paragraph average. ppl dont like you, just as ppl dont like me, learn to accept that some people would smack you if they met you....

we all have the right to hate other people. i hate whiney ultra liberals who cater to every special interest.

cosmo, where is this article from?

...and even if there are some exagerations as mentioned earlier...you cannot deny just much of a royal jackass bush is...the video speaks for itself

...you cannot deny that the war in iraq is not wrong...it just is...and his administration should be held accountable

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

[quote=thesightless]scaredawe= mike moore?

me thinks so more and more every day.

go away if you hate what we are like. :evil: you are the first person to jump on others opinions with posts that have about a 10 paragraph average. ppl dont like you, just as ppl dont like me, learn to accept that some people would smack you if they met you....

we all have the right to hate other people. i hate whiney ultra liberals who cater to every special interest.[/quote]

you wouldn't nor could you do much of anything to me...i was just pointing out how pathetic you are

i wasnt threatening you, just telling you ppl dont like you .

dont call the ppl around here pathetic and sad b/c they dont share your views.

Re: Anyone see Fahrenhype 9/11?

personally i wont ever meet you so i couldnt give a fuck either way.