response 3 of 323:

Jun 24 04:57 UTC 2004

FAHRENHEIT 9/11--  This is the incendiary new documentary from Oscar 
winning writer/director and Flint, Michigan resident Michael Moore.  
This movie is a scathing indictment of George W. Bush and his 
administration.  It starts with the 2000 election debacle and then 
shows 9/11/2001, with the planes hitting the World Trade Center.  As 
the first plane crashes into the WTC, we see unedited footage of what 
Bush was doing at that exact moment.  He was reading a children's book 
at a kindegarten class in Florida.  An aide comes in and whispers in 
his book, "we're under attack"  Bush doesn't do or say anything, just 
goes on nonchalanlantly reading his book.  Then seven minutes later, 
he's still reading his book, and the second plane hits, and still he 
does nothing.  

Moore goes into extensive detail about the relationship between the 
Bush family and the Saudis and the Bin Ladens.  We see George HW Bush 
(Bush the Sr.) in the weeks before the attacks, in Texas meeting with 
Bin Laden family members who were investors in Texas oil stocks.  We 
find out that when Bush released the records of his service (or lack 
thereof) in the Reserves in Alabama, the official documents released 
had some names marked through.  Of course Moore got hold of the 
unmarked documents, and we find out that they had marked through the 
name of the other person who was in the Reserves with Bush and got a 
medical leave at the same time.  A man who is an old friend of Bush and 
later became one of the Bin Laden's money men in the U.S.  The 
implication being made is that we attacked Iraq to divert attention 
from Afghanistan, because the Saudis and the Bin Ladens and the Taliban 
are all heavily invested in the U.S. and in the oil industry.  In fact, 
it is claimed that the Saudis have some $800 billion dollars invested 
in U.S. industries, meaning they basically own 1/7th of the U.S.  
Moore's argument seems to be that Bush and co. knew we were 
bloodthirsty after 9/11 and wanted to hang someone, but he wanted to 
spare Bin Laden and not expose the Saudi connections, so we went after 
Saddam Hussein instead.  

It goes on and on.  Moore absolutely roasts Bush.  Members of Congress 
aren't spared either.  Moore goes to Capital Hill and finds out from a 
Congressman that most legislators don't read the bills they vote on, 
because they don't have time.  Then he gets a full copy of the Patriot 
Act, and drives around the Capital in an ice cream truck, holding a 
megaphone, and reading it out loud.  

The most moving parts of the movie come when Moore goes back to Flint, 
Michigan and follows Marine recruiters as they walk around shopping 
mall parking lots trying to recruit kids, giving them a hard sell to 
join the service.  Then we get to meet a mother in Flint whose son was 
killed in Iraq, and she doesn't know why or for what good reason.  Her 
plight is compared to the plight of members of Congress.  Moore goes 
back to the Hill and finds that of all the members of Congress, only 
one has or had a child serving in Iraq.  Moore then chases different 
Congressman down in his man on the street style and demands to know if 
they'd send THEIR kids to Iraq.  We then see Bush, who also never 
served overseas, giving a speech to some of his fatcat donors, 
saying "you are my base"  The implication being that Bush represents 
the elite and the money, and that they are always going to be most 
concerned about maintaining their status and their money, and that in 
the end regular folk-- like this woman and her family in Flint-- are 
the ones paying the real costs.

That only scratches the surface of this film.  It is an amazing 
work.  "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the grand prize at the Cannes Film 
Festival, and when I saw it today, it got big applause at the end.  
Moore is a propogandist of the highest order, and I don't doubt that 
there are arguments for some of the appalling facts he puts forth.  But 
the cumulative effect of the movie is really REALLY powerful.  

I think every American should see Fahrenheit 9/11, regardless of one's 
political views.  It opens nationally on Friday.  (***** five stars out 
of five)

response 5 of 323:

Jun 24 07:31 UTC 2004

Moore has a house in Flint and an apartment on the upper west side in nyc.
Splits his time.  He is maybe the most famous graduate of UM-Flynt too.

response 7 of 323:

Jun 24 14:06 UTC 2004

I havent ever heard anyone accuse Michael Moore of being fair or 
balanced. Even Michael Moore admits that he has an agenda with his 
films. Still, I like his sense of humor and I expect that I will like 
this film as much as I have liked his other ones. And hey, once in a 
while, he opens my eyes to something. Like that Marilyn Manson 
interview in Bowling for Columbine. Interesting that the creepy rock 
star with the terrible lyrics seemed to actually be a nice guy with a 
brain in his head. Well wht do you know! And what Marilyn Manson said 
about not talking to kids but listening to them has kind of stuck with 
me. *shrug* 

response 11 of 323:

Jun 24 16:13 UTC 2004

re #5.  I'm sorry, you are wrong.  That would be iggy.

response 13 of 323:

Jun 24 16:29 UTC 2004

resp:5 richard isnt one for checking facts. Moore may have attended UM-
Flint but he never graduated. Next you are going to tell us about all 
of Moore's great work in Michigan getting rid of the death penalty 
here. ;) hahahaha. (remember that one, richard?)

response 15 of 323:

Jun 24 16:33 UTC 2004

Why?  And in this context, what constitutes "slander?"

response 17 of 323:

Jun 24 16:52 UTC 2004

        I read or heard somewhere, recently, Bushie was 
        acting nonchalant on purpose. c/b spin control in
        respnse to MM's film.

response 19 of 323:

Jun 24 16:55 UTC 2004

Bush may be, but the talking points still involve villifying Moore in
whatever ways possible.

response 21 of 323:

Jun 24 17:08 UTC 2004

Mr. Moore is, for example, legendary for using trick editing to convey 
false impressions to his audience.  He uses the camera to lie for him.

response 23 of 323:

Jun 24 17:18 UTC 2004

The trickery involved with Charleton Heston's speech the the NRA, for 
one. A second example is "showing" the ease with which a bank depositor 
could obtain a gun as a premium, when, in fact, in his case it was all 
pre-arranged.

response 25 of 323:

Jun 24 17:48 UTC 2004

Heston said what was shown that he said. No words were put in his mouth.
What "trickery"? And are you denying that the bank offered a gun as a
premium? 

I looked at http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.
htm
where the "staging" of the scene is described. Of course it had to be
"staged" to be filmed. But the fact remains: the bank was offering a gun
as a premium. Most people consider that weird on its own. Toasters, sure:
but, guns?

response 27 of 323:

Jun 24 19:05 UTC 2004

RE #13..slynne, I don't recall any item where Michael Moore's views on the
death penalty in michigan were discussed, at least by me.  You must be
confused.

re: mcnally, okay I see your problems are with his style.  Moore has an in
your face take no prisoners style and he has been accused of not being
tactful.  there were people who thought he ambushed poor charlton heston and
didn't like it.  But it didn't change the words that came out of Heston's
mouth did it?  It is whether the means justify the ends, when it comes to
Moore's tactics.  I believe that what he is telling is truth, in a way that
few others have the guts to tell it these days, and questionable tactics
aside, that should be admired.

btw, at the theater, every single showing all day long in all three theaters
in the multiplex that had it were sold out all day long yesterday and today
in advance.  this movie should break all the records for highest grossing
documentary.  Makes you wonder if Disney regrets refusing to release it. 
Moore gets in his shot there too.  In the movie, he goes into the various
corporations that Saudis are heavily invested in, and pointedly mentions
Disney as being one them.