Fahrenheit 9/11

Saw it for the first time tonight. Need to process the information a little before I go too in depth. Going to watch it again tomorrow, maybe I’ll post after that.

I can say that anybody that has not seen it should make it a point to at some time in the near future.

Powerful.

32 thoughts on “Fahrenheit 9/11

  1. Sean downloaded it and watched it. He won’t talk to me about it because it’ll just be an argument between the two of us. I refuse to watch it because I don’t like buying into slef richeous assholes and that is all i think Moore is.

    Sean and I watched “Super Size Me”, though, and that changed the way I look at food and people in general. crazy shit, I tell ya.

  2. And yeah, I know it’s closed minded and not using my critical thinking skills, but we all know Bush screwed up. We all know Moore hates him. I don’t want two hours of it crammed down my throat.

    it is one thing to be political and it is one thing to dislike a politician, but this subculture of Bush bashers- Moore, janeane Garofalo, other celebrities who have changed the entirety of their performances, their forums to attack bush- really chap my ass. Especially since they stick to the same things. He fucks up plenty on a daily bases- attack that.

  3. I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 via webstream. My reaction? Propoganda. Quotes taken out of context (ie, the golf swing was before 9/11 about something else), tear card with the military and smokescreens, etc.

    Fahrenhype 9/11 just came out on DVD and I need to rent that. I’d say if you want people to give Moore’s film a shot, you should give the “other side” a fair chance to respond.

  4. I think the commercial is ridiculous hes using up-lifting music when there showing the trade center go down WTF! I dont support him with the money im going to rent the movie with. I dont plan to see it.:|

  5. Kristen, I agree about people jumping on the Bush-bashing bandwagon. It’s rediculous. I’m a KErry supporter but I’m not about to attend an anti-Bush protest anytime soon.

    The being said, while the movie does bash him… big time… it was also rather informative. I learned a lot about the link between the BinLaden family and the Bush family that I didn’t know about before.

    I also got to see the footage of just how much some of the Iraqi people REALLY hate us for being over there.

    I do unserstand it’s very one sided and if there were a documentary out there about the Clinton’s of the Kerry’s I’d watch it too.

    Heather – That’s a very close minded opinion. The movie shows the WTC’s for about 5 minutes. The rest of the movie is the aftermath of that tragady. I don’t think that I’ve seen the commercial that you speak of. The movie uses various musical interludes to make a point and flows very well with what is going on on the screen. You shouldn’t so quickly judge a movie based on a 30 second preview.

  6. Although I can’t deny the bin Laden family ties to Bush’s family (both families are involved in oil), I am very skepitcal about the links Moore tried to draw between the current situation. Mainly because Osama bin Laden is one of FIFTY brothers and sisters from one of the wealthiest middle-eastern families in the world.

    When Moore’s film talked about the ties with Saudi Arabia, I noticed he forgot to mention bin Laden had his assets frozen in 92-94 when he became a loud anti-American activist and revoked his citizenship in 1994 and he hasn’t been back since.

    The emphasis of the movie is the military and its occupation in Iraq. Of course you’re going to find your soldiers that don’t want to be there. You’re going to have your Iraqis that aren’t enjoying the violence, the car bombs, etc. I’m sure you had the same reactions during the war for independence. But i’ve also watched videos of the people thanking the American soldiers, I’ve watched the soldiers coming back Iraq proud of what they’ve done and some don’t mind if they are called back again.

    and I am very sorry about the lives that have been lost, I truly am. And my heart goes out to the families, but when Moore commented how the mom didn’t receive her son’s full paycheck, that they cut it off a few days short of a month or whatever. What’s the point in that? If the computer is told he died on the 26th, the computer will stop his pay on the 26th. I don’t think Dick Cheney ran into the payroll room and demanded the fallen soldier’s pay to be rolled back 🙄 That’s what seemed to be implied… and I guarantee you her pension by the US government is alot more than those couple of days.

    Anyway, one sided bias = propaganda

  7. So, usually, I don’t comment on Anna’s posts mainly because I think that if Anna and I speak, it should be in person, I mean, we do LIVE together :heart:

    At any rate, I watched the documentary with Anna the other night.

    Several things ring true (regarduless of the bias shown in Moore’s documentary.

    1. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) before we ‘INVADED’ Iraq (from today’s healdines, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/).

    2. There is no link bewteen the attack in NY on 9/11 and Iraq (current headlines, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/ )

    3. We are in IRAQ now on false pretenses, urged to do so because Bush and his men urged the country to do so. Now, Iraq is in shambles, and we’re in over our heads, trying to rebuild a country that we helped destroy, a country that never attacked us or threatened us.

    When you mess up, you take responsibility for it. Until such a time that Bush and Cheney come clean about their mistakes there is no way I can allow myself to vote for them, let alone envision them as our leaders for another four years.

    we blasted the hell out of a country because bush took advantage of those not in the know, and urged us to attack them, that we HAD to attack them because somewhere, somehow, he thought that they had stockpiled WMD, when the intelligence at that time showed no ties to iraq. How indeed did this happen? Bush receives all of the blame from me, Bush and his administration. I’m usually not very politically opinionated, but jesus! We’ve honestly destroyed the image of the United States in less than four years. I sincerely hope that our country can restore the international public opinion, let alone domestic opinion, to restore faith that we are not constantly being deceived by the President of the United States.:(

  8. Maybe I am a close minded teenageror. I was thinking about seeing it when it first came out in the theaters and to change my desicion I watched a few telvison shows talking about it and about 10 clips. I dont think Im going to support someone that mocks the president of the US, even if i didnt support him. Like greek philsophers said the wisest should rule because they can set aside there personal feelings, and then they concluded there is no such person. I wouldnt even spend a few dollars to support him since im a close minded person.

  9. I don’t think that it mocks the President. I also am not even nieve enough to think that everything in the movie is factual. There are things that I learned however that, based on farther research, I’ve found ARE true. Truths that I think any Ameican of voting age should know about. As I stated before, if there were a documentary about Kerry or the Clinton’s I’d watch it also. I think as an American who firmly believes that voting is something that EVERY SINGLE person of age should be required to do, that every person who votes should be as informed as possible before stamping that ballot. That means watching, reading and listening to every possible bit of information I can so that I make an informed decision. It also means not believing everything I watch, read and hear as truth…

    If I never watched anything that mocked the president I’d have to stop watching Saterday Night Live, The Daily Show, Mad TV, The West Wing, every comedian alive… the list goes on and on.

  10. I personally think it’s a theatrical political punch and I won’t be wasting my 4 bucks on even renting it. I watch the debates, hec even watched our opponents on Dr. Phil. But this movie is a joke IMO and I won’t be seeing it. It’s just too much of a coincidence that this movie is released to the public right before voting :bs:

    I have a differing opinion than some I know on the war at hand. But really if Bush had not sent our men/women in then his opponent would be using that as leverage to win the election. It always seems to be a lose lose situation when it comes to war, kwim? And after all it is politics………. :liar:

  11. oops that was me

    I personally think it’s a theatrical political punch and I won’t be wasting my 4 bucks on even renting it. I watch the debates, hec even watched our opponents on Dr. Phil. But this movie is a joke IMO and I won’t be seeing it. It’s just too much of a coincidence that this movie is released to the public right before voting

    I have a differing opinion than some I know on the war at hand. But really if Bush had not sent our men/women in then his opponent would be using that as leverage to win the election. It always seems to be a lose lose situation when it comes to war, kwim? And after all it is politics……….

  12. I don’t think it’s at all a coinsidence. As a matter of fact, if you ask Moore I’m sure that he would be quite honest about the fact that he put it out a month before the election on purpose.

    It is a political punch no doubt about that… I don’t think I’d call it theatrical though. I mean there are no actors. It’s all real people speaking from real experience. Granted, it’s all people speaking from the same point of view.

    I didn’t get to see the Dr Phil interview, I just heard about it last night on the Daily Show. I’ll probably try and find that online tonight to watch it.

  13. I disagree that Iraq is in shambles or that we’re in over our heads. We’ve completely unseated someone that was in power for decades and are in the process of replacing his government that had its claws dug very deeply. This isn’t something that can happen overnight. It’s not like Desert Storm where we defended Kuwait and Saddam surrendered and we pulled out (somewhat). There’s alot of work involved in creating a new democratic government…particularly when we’re trying to make this government self-sufficient in taking care of itself instead of always having the US or the UN holding its hand.

    Having said that, I’m not just talking about whether or not Iraq was right or wrong, because everyone has their own feelings on that against the president or defending him. What I am talking about is the content of Moore’s film. If you’ve seen ANY of his films, back to “Roger & Me” you would know his “documentaries” are very one sided and if you take his work at face value, you’re falling for an extremely biased source. I learned alot from Roger & Me when I saw it years ago, but I also knew I had to queston anything I learned in the film because because he was only sticking to his side of the story and bending things into exactly what he wanted to get across.

    Yes, Fahrenheit 9/11 uses real life quotes from real life people. But there’s also the magic of editing and misrepresenting quotes by taking them out of context. Moore did this fabulously for the people that idolize “Bowling for Columbine” with Charlton Heston’s quote by taking a soundbite from a completely different rally and inserting it with quotes against Gun Control dealing with the Columbine aftermath. How can you trust what he “reports” if he does things like this? What IS the truth?

    When you deconstruct the truth in parts of your story, you create critics that will begin to discredit what truths you might tell… but why should someone have to dig around your hour or so of film trying to figure out what you’ve taken out of context or what is actual truth?

    Anyway, I’m going to try to rent Fahrenhype this weekend. I’ll let you know if its a good response film.

  14. Eu said:
    I disagree that Iraq is in shambles or that we’re in over our heads.
    —>Really? Almost daily reports of car bombings? Body parts being picked up after each attack? This is not shambles? (A place or scene of bloodshed or carnage):?

    RE: Mooore’s Bias
    I have no doubt that Moore dislikes George W. Bush, he has given us so many reasons to feel tha way (see also: sig. higher unemployment, a war we began under false pretenses). However, ruling out the bias, and learning about the unorthodox relationships that exist bewteen the Bush families businesses, and the Bin Laden’s, one can only assume that in the very least, their interests and motivations were and ARE questionable. We can debate back and forth til we’re both blue in the face about how credible or not Credible Moore’s movie is. But regardless of how many vacation days Bush took…, there is just too much ‘evidence’ that shows that Bush lead us into War under false pretenses. Moore’s movie shows, with bias, how many motivating factors (see also money, money, and more money) lead us to focus on Iraq and attack them as a result of 9/11.:x

    I don’t take all quotes/clips from the movie as fact. Editing is magic, and can transform almost any clip into whatever the author wants it to be. Granted, you can’t deny that Bush, Cheney, Cheney’s assistant, and Colin Powell all LIED TO US about WMD in Iraq. :liar: They KNEW there were no WMD at that time, yet, used it to show just cause to go to WAR? WAR? people DYING! Destruction of Property!! All along, they happen to own all or part of the of the largest defense contract companies in the country??? That benefits from war???? These are not questionable things, these are indeed facts. Nothing I have said is in question. I have never in my life felt so strongly about my political beliefs. This election is going to bring out those that have sat silently by in previous elections…, and with luck, Bush will officially be removed from office.:dance:

    Truth? Bush/Cheney know nothing of truth. All they know is greed.:x

    EU, what do you like aobut Bush/Cheney that you might choose to re-elect them for another term?:box:

  15. You know if the movie was not so damned biased I would probably rent it. When I first heard of it, I honestly wanted to see it. But I HATE biased opinions with a passion.

    I know this is going to sound like a ridiculous analogy, but here goes: I left my ex for some very questionable reasons. If he had made a film at that time and documented the facts from his point of view I would have looked REALLY BAD!! But only because not ALL the facts would have been heard and seen. Now I know people didn’t die because I got divorced, but it did have a huge impact on me and my children, so it seemed the best comparison I had at hand;)

    This movie just seems very unfair to me. I’m all for watching the debates but this is really NMS. Although I could be biased as well because I don’t like Moore, he falls in my “what an ass” catagory of people.

    I guess what scares me the most about the film is that uneducated people are going to watch this and take EVERYTHING as pure fact and go to the polls based on what I still call a theatrical performance. It was edited and narrated and put together with music, etc..

    JMO of course, see ya at the polls:mrgreen:

  16. Chris, you said:
    “…I guess what scares me the most about the film is that uneducated people are going to watch this and take EVERYTHING as pure fact and go to the polls based on what I still call a theatrical performance…..

    Sounds like you are describing George W. Bush’s administration, speaking about WMD as a reason to INVADE Iraq? (talk aobut Theatrical!!!!) (hehe, and the price we’ll pay for that will far exceed my $4 from blockbuster!! ) 😕

    At any rate, I’m looking forward to the next debate (Friday I think it is?)

  17. I really don’t think we needed WMD as a reason to invade Iraq. If Bush and his administration had not sent our arms forces in after 9-11 the public would have been outraged and that would be the reason Moore and other extremists would be using as a reason to get rid of him. You can’t have it both ways. We were attacked and our goverment responded, had they not it would have sent a terrible message to the world at wide. I completely support Bush and hope to God others do too! Sorry Ben but I too am probably at my most strong political stand this election 😉

  18. the movie is full of half truths and lies if you have to use lies to put your point across then your point is clearly wrong

    if you investigated ALL of the people that have “ties” to the bin laden family you would find such liberal blowhards as george soros and many others…why no mention of them?…..tell me senator rockefeller does not have ties to bin ladens family 🙄

    john kerry himself has said that iraq was developing nukes and had WMDs the world believed it as did 90% of the liberals out there…now that Bush is wrong what they said in the past is forgotten 🙄

    the 911 report stated the BRITISH intelligence from MI-5 and MI-6 WAS CORRECT that contacts for yellow cake uranium were made with niger by sadam

    where were all of these antiwar people when clinton unilaterally took us into europes back yard in kosovo to get us into a war that we are STILL MIRED in. a country that offered NO threat to the USA was bommed to oblivion by the war criminal wes clark who bombed a TV station when he KNEW FOR A FACT it was occupied by civilians and he MURDERED them anyway just to keep their FREE SPEACH off of the airwaves

    wes clark had a plan to get us out of iraq, but strangely the liberal press and michael moore never ask him if he would also get us out of his AND clintons war after a DECADE PLUS in kosovo….a war that was CLEARLY started with out un support to try to knock clintons sex scandels out of the headlines

    i would take a President who made a mistake based on bad intelligence from the worlds finest agencies over one who murders others to cover up his sexual escapades

    the hyprocacy of the left is astounding :x8O:cherry:

  19. Chris, that’s the thing. Yes, we were attacked. But by who? Not Sadaam. Sadaam had absolutely nothing to do with 911.

    Bin Laden is the one who planned, funded and carried out 911. NOT Sadaam.

    So why is it that Bin Laden is still free? Why aren’t we sending 1000’s of troops to where HE is and finding HIM?

    Why? Because all our efforts are being pointed at Iraq.

    We did not respond to being attacked. We responded to false information. The president himself as well as the vice president BOTH stated in the debates that there is no link between Iraq and 911.

    That’s a very common misconception that I hear all too often.

  20. Chris, that’s the thing. Yes, we were attacked. But by who? Not Sadaam. Sadaam had absolutely nothing to do with 911.

    Bin Laden is the one who planned, funded and carried out 911. NOT Sadaam.

    So why is it that Bin Laden is still free? Why aren’t we sending 1000’s of troops to where HE is and finding HIM?

    Why? Because all our efforts are being pointed at Iraq.

    We did not respond to being attacked. We responded to false information. The president himself as well as the vice president BOTH stated in the debates that there is no link between Iraq and 911.

    That’s a very common misconception that I hear all too often.

  21. we could put a million troops looking for bin laden, but when he is hiding in pakastan we are at the mercey of pakastan a country that clinton allowed to go nuclear and that we would have ZERO support for invading even to get bin laden

    pakastan is hunting for him but it is going to be slow going their leader is having assination attempts on him daily, yet we need HIM in power because he is a much better alternative than anyoe who might take over the country and its nukes

    the world believed sadam had WMDs and was working towards nukes

    sadam sponsored terrorist in Israel and Gaza by paying each bombers family 10,000

    Israel is the only free and stable government in the area and a strong ally regardless of how you feel about them in the territories

    sadam was paying the HIGHEST of french and UN and german officials to remove the santions on him and he surely would have started problems again he JUST stated that he was fixated on going after iran again

    even dumbass muslims say they are glad he was gone and he was a terrorist and a tyrant, but they dont like the way he was removed…..how the fuck do you remove a tyranical terrorist…..ask him pretty fucking please!!!

    he was offered exile and REFUSED…he was not going to leave and was going to continue to cause problems for THE WORLD and most importantly the USA!!:!::!::!:8)

  22. You make a good point, TexasHick

    “sadam was paying the HIGHEST of french and UN and german officials to remove the santions on him and he surely would have started problems again he JUST stated that he was fixated on going after iran again”

    I believe you are correct here, that Saddam was a problem. HOwever, George W. Bush lead us to believe that Saddam had EVERYTHING to do with 9/11, and used it as justification to go invade IRAQ?

    The ignorance and blindness to bush’s lies astounds me.

    Kosovo eh? YOu’d think our country would have learned by now eh TexasHick? 10 years later? and history is repeating? So, you’re advocating stopping the repeition of a mistake? But, only…we can’t, because…we’ve done it again, and this time, Bush/Cheney were on watch…Guess it’s time for them to go…

  23. kosovo was not a threat to us or anyone else that is why we should not have been there

    you just said sadam was a threat….what do you propose to do about it wait for the UN to remove the sanctions after being bribed by sadam allowing him to restart his WMD programs then go after him?

    again the quotes by kerry, clinton, albright, pelosi, edwards, kennedy and the rest of the peanut gallery are clear they believed sadam had WMDS just as Bush did and they believed he was looking to obtain nukes……THEY SAID IT WITH THEIR OWN MOUTHS…..they would be bashing Bush to no end right now if he had FAILED to remove sadam with the evidence THE WORLD believed in

    Bush and Cheney NEVER said sadam was linked to 9-11 (as stated by factcheck.org) what they said was that sadam was linked to terrorist including al quada……they are similar statements but VERY differant although in my opinion they both require the same course of action the removal of sadam

    if you had a house and harbored an aquaintance that you knew was involved in and planning terror and you turned a blind eye to it and they went out and committed a terrorist act then you were not directally rsponsible or a participant in that specific act, but you have culpability…..sadam allowed ansar al islam to train in northern iraq and even use an old 707 body to train in for taking over planes….sadam harbored and sponsored terrorist as cleary spelled out by the 9-11 commission…..he needed to go

    it is also clear in the 9-11 report the #2 of al queda was in bagdad several times in the years prior to 9-11

    kosovo posed no terrorist threat to the USA neither did somolia (an action thats failure EMBOLDENED bin laden as his own words described)….sudan poses no threat to the USA……..yet kerry and edwards are ready to go there unilateraly tomorrow if they could….neither did liberia….yet the world and ALL liberal democrats wanted us to go there…in the middle of the “underfunded under trooped iraq war”…..funny we dont have enough troops in afganistan or iraq but the libs want some sent to a third world africa shithole:?::roll::roll: lets get the stroy straight here 🙄

    kerry and edwards are ready to conquer any halfassed non-threat that comes their way but when a clear terrorist that poses a threat to the USA directally and to our allies comes along they want to turn tail and run…great leadership

    save the world from liberia and sudan and somolia but ignore sadam….makes sense to me…..NOT

  24. how else can I say this…k…, how about this, Nazi’s…, we went to help with the Nazi’s and Germany because Hitler Germany was conducting Genocide of the Jewish People, Secondly they threatened world Domination. Dont’ sit there and tell me that Saddam did either of those. He was not angel, not by a LONG shot, but we did not have just cause to RUSH to war! The fact that years before, terrorists were tracked to Iraq does not mean 1)they had WMD, 2) they had the R&D moving forward for WMD. In fact, post 1998 Iraq did not post the threats that BUSH lied to us about!! This is twisting of the facts by Cheney/Bush to try to make a case that indeed at some point, in the future, not now, but someday out there, they might again start building up WMD. But at this time, they had none, and were not making any quick progress toward WMD. I’m so tired of people inferring otherwise with their half-truths. Kosovo was also a case of Genecide, (again, like the Nazi’s), we as an american people I THOUGHT were united about stopping Genocide, obviously I am very clearly mistaken, however, when a remote chance comes that says a terrosist was once in Iraq? Hell, lets obliterate the countryside!!! Yay! Deaht to anything that moves in iraq, yay!!! (jesus)

    I think I’ve heard that Texas has WMD, TexasHick. I may have to report that to bush (sigh)

  25. Furthermore, the report can best be summarized as it has been up on MSNBC:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6191353/

    “…A final report from the chief U.S. weapons hunter in Iraq concluded that Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, had no programs to make either them or nuclear bombs, and had little ability — or immediate plans — to revive those programs….”

    This summary of the report is the truth, anything else is rhetoric.

  26. I don’t mean this question as offensive but was this movie made for profit? I guess in the end this would be my deciding factor on renting it or not. Meaning is it a non-profit film made soley for public knowledge? Or is it just an expensive modern day political campaign tactic?

  27. As Hick already said, the Bush Administration NEVER said the pursuit for Saddam was specifically linked to 9/11. We all know that 9/11 was Al Qaeda and bin Laden. Taking down Saddam was because of the overwhelming evidence international intelligence provided that said he was pursuing WMD. And the overwhelming history he has had in supporting terrorism. These two factors made him a threat to the US and the world because he had the resources.

    Kerry AND Edwards voted for the Iraq war based on the SAME INTELLIGENCE Bush and Cheney had. This is the SAME intelligence Tony Blair had that led to the UK joining us as Allies. The information this week has been that there was no evidence of WMD, however according to the same report in regards to Oil-for-Food and UN-French-Russian corruption he was seeking components for the WMDs. Infact, in APRIL before we officially attacked Iraq, Russia was fulfilling a large missile order… two of these missiles were actually used by the Iraqis and we’ve been wondering — where the heck did those come from? Now we know, and I think the three most vocal countries against our Iraq war have alot of explaining to do… Saddam managed to corrupt the sanctions and as time was passing the snowball was getting bigger and bigger.

    So does this justify the war? Well its all hindsight. Just over a week ago Kerry said he would regret the war depending how it turns out. Now he’s condeming it because of the recent report. BUT HE KNEW THE SAME INFORMATION BUSH AND CHENEY KNEW TO START IT AND HE VOTED FOR IT. He voted against it the second time, but that had to do with the amount of money to go for it (or was it to look against the war like Dean & Clark?) which in turn one can say is why our troops aren’t better equipped.

    and by the way — we didn’t know about the concentration camps till the war was almost over and we were already defeating the Germans.

    Like I said earlier, we can go on forever for the war or against it and I lost my passion for online debates after the 2000 election 🙂

    The fact of the matter is, Moore’s “documentary” as he calls it distorts the truth. There are pages and pages about what is misrepresented and there is a new movie out called Fahrenhype 9/11. If parts of your movie are untrue, the critical viewer will dismiss the movie as garbage than have to sort through what’s true and what’s not.

  28. I said:
    Taking down Saddam was because of the overwhelming evidence international intelligence provided that said he was pursuing WMD. And the overwhelming history he has had in supporting terrorism. These two factors made him a threat to the US and the world because he had the resources.

    Hick said:
    sadam sponsored terrorist in Israel and Gaza by paying each bombers family 10,000

    etc.

    And both of us have already made reference to the violation of UN Sanctions by Iraq. What a coincidence these countries were the most vocal against invading Iraq. 🙄

    France, Russia, etc. should all be ashamed of themselves. They underminded sanctions that were meant to help the oppressed Iraqi people out of their own greed for money.

    So what did Saddam need all of these weapons and supplies for anyway? Lawn decorations? 🙄

    (movie, talk about the movie)

Leave a Reply to The prisAnna Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *