Lots of writers are stepping up to point out the lies and gross distortions in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11;
That's not true - I haven't seen one.
...here's Melanie Phillips' take: Farragoheit 9/11.
Wait!
Am I debating Charles or Melanie?
Are you bringing Melanie into this so you can say "*I*
didn't say it - Melanie did?"
Moore would have you believe that the terrorist threat to America was all invented by President Bush
That's not true.
Moore says he mishandled 9-11 and ignored Saudi guilt
to go after Saddam's oil fields.
Not once did Moore say Al Qaeda was no threat to America.
Such a bald-faced lie proves you are a monkey.
...in order to serve his friends' financial interests.
Bush's friends (like Halliburton) are making billions
from this needless war.
That's a fact nobody can deny.
Forget 9/11. Forget all the evidence that persuaded
Clinton of the threat from rogue states combining
with terrorism and WMDs. Moore believes this
threat was entirely fabricated by President Bush,
and all those Americans who believed it are made
to look stupid.
That's not true.
If you could stay somewhere near the truth and occasionally stretch
a point, you'd have some credibility.
But to claim Moore says, "There is no terrorist
threat," is a flat-out lie.
Why don't you stick to what Moore SAID, and stop pretending
to know what Moore thinks.
Indeed, what is so striking is the deep contempt
Moore has for his fellow Americans, and the bottomless regard
for himself. For Mooreland is populated by the
stupid, credulous or corrupt - except, or course, for Michael Moore.
That's self-serving horseshit
and it certainly wasn't in Moore's movie.
Why don't you stick to the facts and leave your sidewalk psychoanalysis
out of this.
And then we get to Iraq. Here the film's lies
turn disgusting. For pre-invasion Iraq is portrayed as a happy,
relaxed place with carefree, smiling people -
until the Americans start dropping bombs on it for no good reason.
No, Moore showed that not every Iraqi was being murdered and
tortured.
Kids flew kites under Saddam, and people got married under Saddam.
If you can't live with the facts, go eat a banana, Monkey.
...and if Moore is so guilty, why do you have to exaggerate so much
to find fault?
There's no mention whatever of the terror inflicted on the Iraqi people by Saddam, the hundreds of thousands killed or tortured by his regime.
He didn't mention that ice is cold or fire is hot, either.
That's because everyone knows it's true - why should he waste time
on a given?
No mention that, way before George W Bush, the Clinton administration was convinced that Saddam and al Qaeda were linked.
Horseshit
Cite your source for that.
You tell us what's inside Moore's head, then what's inside Clinton's
head.
Why don't you stick to the facts - or do the facts not
suit your silly-ass crusade?
Instead, just grisly pictures of the casualties of war,
War is a dirty, ugly, destructive mother-effer.
That's why sane presidents try to avoid getting into a war.
...the gross exploitation of the grieving mother of a dead soldier,
That mother had editorial control over her part in the film,
which means, if anything, she exploited herself, but Moore certainly
didn't.
...and the lie that Saddam never killed or threatened any American
I just read Moore's explanation for that but I
can't put my hands on the link.
Score a half point for the phychic liar.
(presumably the assassination attempt on W's father during a visit to Kuwait in April 1993 doesn't count).
Saddam was punished for that - and it didn't cost America 907 soldiers'
lives.
And all punctuated by manipulated footage of the current President designed to present him as moronic or malign.
Bush is a f-ing moron. Moore showed footage proving that - get over
it.
I saw the film today, and yes, it's amazingly mendacious.
If the film is so bad, why do you have to lie when calling him on the
film's flaws?
Why can't you quote the "lies" in the film and stop reading minds?
Since there are already so many others doing a great job of debunking "Two Cheeseburgers" Moore,
Aha!
Since you can't lay a glove on Moore honestly, you resort to "Moore
is fat."
Did you learn that from Rush or Hannity?
I'd like to write about an aspect of the film
that nearly pulled me in-and ended up making me furious at Moore.
Moore knew he would have to deal with the actual
9/11 attacks somehow; so after the long, boring intro explaining
how Bush stole the 2000 election
Funny you'd call the Moore's account of the loss of our right to vote
"boring."
Would it have been "boring" if Bush won and Gore stole the election?
...we see the footage of the 9/11 atrocities.
Well, actually no-we don't. Moore cuts to a black
screen, and plays only the sounds of the attacks,
before an extended montage of drifting ashes
and papers, artfully floating through the air while mournful music plays.
I thought Moore showed restraint.
We've all seen the planes hitting the towers a thousand times.
Why should Moore make it 1001?
At first, I thought this was a clever and effective
way to evoke the memories of 9-11 And then, the question
occurred to me: why would someone who clearly
understands the power of images choose not to show the
most powerful images of our time?
Asked and answered.
Move on.
Because Moore knew that if he showed those images,
which have been mostly absent from media for almost 3 years,
he ran the risk of awakening the anger and feelings
of intense danger we all experienced that day.
It's amazing how you knew what's in Moore's mind, and why he made the
editing decisions he made.
If you can really reads minds, why don't you travel with the Monkey
circus?
And that was a risk he could not run-because it
could very well spoil the tone of the rest of the film,
and expose him for the smirking, unserious buffoon
he is.
Self-serving horseshit, assuming "facts" not in evidence.
Example:
You wrote this false and hate-filled review because Moore rejected
your homosexual advances.
See how easy it is to "speak" for someone and pretend you know what
they think?
After the blank screen 9/11 section of the film,
he cuts almost immediately to scenes from talk shows,
with bumbling people trying to sell anti-terrorism
gadgets, and interviews several anti-Bush talking heads
about the "climate of fear" that the Bush administration
imposed on the country.
That's the first true sentence you've written.
Bush keeps saying "You're safer with me as
president," then Ridge and Ashcroft talk about
delaying the election because we're going to have another 9-11 on Bush's
watch.
Which is it? Amd why can't you and Bush make up your minds?
Moore is a canny filmmaker. He realized that if
he segued immediately to this snarky, derisive viewpoint
after showing people jumping to their deaths
from the top of the World Trade Center, some of the Moore
Koolaid drinkers might feel twinges of conscience;
they might remember what it felt like to see the largest
buildings in New York City collapse, crushing
and ripping apart the bodies of thousands of their fellow Americans.
Suck me.
You just said Democrats have no conscience and no liberals lost friends
or family that day.
Fuck you for stooping that low, you sniveling, factless coward.
Some of them might even start to come out from
under Moore's cinematic spell,
if such an ugly reality were allowed to intrude.
Bush lied us into a war to get rich,
you love him for that,
and we're the ones under a spell?
They might get mad. And some of them would be
mad at him.
So Moore, cowardly to the bottom of his hateful
little shriveled soul, cut to a black screen.
Once again, you assume you know what Moore was thinking, then you pretend
to speak for us.
Not only are you a failure as a psychic and a shrink, you failed to
point out a single lie in the film.
maybe you'd have better luck in some AOL, ditto-monkey chat room, because
you struck out here.
Remember how you started?
Lots of writers are stepping up to point out the lies and gross distortions in Fahrenheit 9/11;
If you run into a column that points out Moore's "lies," let me know.