Fahrenheit 9/11: is it based on FACT?

[SkinWalker]

I finally got to see the new Michael Moore documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11.

 

My first thoughts while waiting for Bush & Co. to get their makeup straight was, "how much of this is going to be based in fact and how much is out of context or out-right fabrication?"

 

My personal bias is toward Michael Moore for a couple of reasons, 1) he's funny (at times) and entertaining. I watched a couple of his other movies and a couple of his television show episodes and I enjoyed the way he stuck it to corporate execs and the NYC police over shooting an African-American holding his wallet (they thought it was a gun and MM held a wallet turn in for the NYPD); 2) he's the left's answer to right-wing mouths like Rush Limbaugh. I find it ironic how right wing nutters complain that Moore is over the top, but can't wait to call in and say, "mega-Dittos" to Rush.

 

Having said that, I'm also a scientist at heart, so I recognize my bias and maintain a skeptical eye.

 

Much of what Moore discussed wasn't new to me, though I have to admit that I'd never seen the Bath discrepancy and connection to the Bin Laden family that Moore portrayed.

 

My overall feeling on the movie was that he was a bit over the top in his attack on the lawmakers, harassing them about signing their kids up to go to Iraq. Also, the bit about Bush sitting in the classroom was a bit drawn out. But I understood what he was trying to demonstrate with these two points at the same time: those that don't have to shed blood or bleed in battle found it too easy to have others do it; and the American public needs to consider whether Bush is competent enough to do the job. Unlike Moore, I don't believe that Bush was thinking about his Bin Laden ties. I think he was simply clueless. I had enough clueless leaders in the military to be able to recognize the look.

 

Moore raised an interesting point that I've discussed with others in the past: the media absolutely avoided (and avoids) the families of servicemembers who are bitter about their kids and husbands being in Iraq. The media doesn't seem to be doing its job of informing the public. Dissent exists and is widespread, yet it is rarely covered. The dead are not honored. Bush has yet to attend a funeral of the nearly 1000 killed. And we've lost nearly a full 1/3 of what was taken from us on 9/11 and still haven't found Bin Laden.

 

The poll.

 

I'm wondering if you think that Fahrenheit 9/11 is factually based. I'm also asking that if you think not based on fact, that you support this. What specifically did you find fallacious or false? Are the critics of Fahrenheit 9/11 simply reacting out of anger, or do they have legitimate complaints.

 

So far, the only legitimate complaint I've heard is that Moore took one congressman's comments out of context in the enlist-your-kids stunt, but this seems to be a minor part of the documentary itself and one of Moore's trademark stunts... even I took this with a grain of salt.

[El Sitherino]

I voted mostly factual. I'm not naive, Moore does twist some facts to better get his point across and exaggerate his views, but he's no worse than right wing propagandists (Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name a few).

I found Fahrenheit 9/11 a refreshing breath of life. My fathers girlfriend has a son in Iraq and he hates it, he sees no reason why we're there, so do many of his fellow soldiers.

 

and it's true, we have yet to see Bush attend a single funeral of a fallen soldier from this war.

 

 

What I really liked about the movie was that the war footage, Moore used a lot of tact in not showing the worst cases of violence. The images of mutilated people weren't even the worst I've seen come out of attacks in Iraq.

 

I enjoyed his congress stunt, I found it humourous. If these congressmen/women approve of this war, why don't they send their kids to die in it also?

 

The part that disturbed me though was that one soldier that sang that "Burn Mother F*cker, Burn" thing.... it was.... very disturbing.

[ET Warrior]

I'd say it's mostly based on facts. I have been unable to SEE The movie, so I cannot give a very good account, but Michael Moore, while I agree is very over-the-top, usually still presents FACTS, even if they have a liberal spin on the way they are presented.

[Mort-Hog]

I like the nice alliteration of his name. Other than that, I'm not really a big fan.

I haven't seen Fahrenheit 911 (though I must say I was very amused by the title. it is quite clever, considering the content of Fahrenheit 457), but I plan to see it soon. It was only released over here recently.

 

I thought Bowling for Columbine raised some interesting points, but I didn't like how they did it. He could have made the same argument without it looking like blatant propaganda.

For example, when it was listing the statistics for gun deaths across countries, Britain - 20, Germany 15, Japan - 12, America - 5000 or something like that. It was total deaths not taking into account the population size. Now, even if it was per capita then the American statistic was much higher than any of the others he gave (I know, I worked it out), but of course there wasn't quite such a dramatic difference. That annoyed me.

 

Also much of it seemed like an 'emotional appeal'. Like when he takes the children into the shop to buy all the bullets, or something. Or when he puts down the picture of the girl at the NRA bloke's mansion. None of that really proves any argument. The 'emotional appeal' stuff is usually the realm of conservative types.

 

Also asking the NRA spokesman "what's wrong with america?" is not sensible. The guy sells guns and gives speeches, it's not surprising that he gave such as stupid answer as he did. Asking a historian or sociologist would make much more sense.

 

I did like the South Park-style cartoon. That was funny.

I don't think Moore's work should really be used as arguments on their own. Their usefulness lies in that it starts to make people question the government and question Bush, and might lead them on to reading other newspapers and doing some other research. It's funny and interesting and acts as a bridge to the more serious solid stuff. Blindly accepting Moore is the same as blindly accepting Bush.

 

I've read Stupid White Men. That too covered some interesting points (the racial struggle in America has interesting paralells with the class struggle in Britain) but I really don't like Moore's writing style.

 

I don't really like his "fight fire with fire" tactics. There are perfectly good logical arguments that could prove his points, but Moore tends to avoid them. Right-wing types tend always to go for the "human appeal" of traditional values and thatwhat. Take for example, abortion. The conservative argument against it is simply that it is "killing babies" or somesuch line, but if you think about it logically there really is no sensible argument against abortion. Forcing a mother to keep a child even if she doesn't want it has no advantages whatsoever. The same can be said for genetic engineering, and conservatives always play the 'immoral' and 'playing God' card (even though there is actually a fairy good scientific reason against it).

 

Moore seems to just stoop down to that level. I'd be much more impressed with a totally solid, well-structured logical argument.

[El Sitherino]

japan has half our population, so I guess if they had the same population it'd work out to 24.

[Kain]

I'd say mostly facts, but Micheal Moore will be the first one to tell you that his films are his opinions presented so anyone can understand where he stands politically and why he stands there. I have yet to see the movie, but I have watched his show, I've seen Bowling for Columbine and I've seen several of his interviews, and in all said interviews, the interviewer tried twisting Moore's words, in a probable attempt to make him seem dumb in the public eye. Fortunantly, Moore used the same tactic to make the interviewer look dumb.

 

Off topic: Did anyone see Whoopi Goldberg got fired from Slim Fast for making fun of Bush. It shows how far Bush's hand is shoved up big-business' ass.

 

 

Expand your Imagi-Nation

[yaebginn]

for one, the congress stunt is retarded.you cant send your kids into the army, they have to choose. so thats dumb. and its lying. In reality. the guy that just stared at him actually agreed to help and said he had two nephews, one in Iraq and one in afganistan. and Bush did go to iraq on thanksgiving and served them a thanksgiving meal.

[SkinWalker]

Wow. Uh-huh.

 

But with regard to the information given in the movie other than the trademark Michael Moore stunts, did you find that it was largely factual or hyperbole. Or did you find any outright lies and why.

 

And just for the record, while the stunt on the steps of the Capital was somewhat underhanded, at no time was it a lie. He simply inquired as to whether members of Congress were willing to take some enlistment papers home to their kids. None were. A U.S. Marine was with Moore to help answer any questions they had about enlistment.

[Kurgan]

So far most of the stuff seems to be backed up, but I haven't done an exhaustive investigation into the film, so there could still be some spin and generalizations in there. This is Michael Moore after all, and he's got an obvious agenda (no documentary is totally unbiased).

 

I liked F-911 much more than Bowling for Columbine. There were some dishonest edits in that previous film to beat the audience over the head with his point. I think he learned his lesson this time by hardly appearing in this one and mostly letting the footage speak for itself.

 

There were a couple of times I winced at Moore's attempts at humor during F-911, and it didn't tell me much I didn't already know, but it was effective in bringing the point home and showed some footage I hadn't seen before.

 

The stuff with the mother who lost her son was particularly moving, since I have a cousin who was out there. She could have been one of the ones who died or who was crippled for life. Plenty of people didn't come back and didn't come back whole. I imagine the war left its mark on everyone even those who did come back without too bad of injuries.

 

Moore's point is that Bush is an incompetent president (at best... at worst he's simply corrupt) and he's done a poor job handling the War on Terror, and the Iraq war, as well as the 9-11 crisis. While verifying all the "Facts" presented in the film is an ongoing process (the investigations continue) I think at least we agree on those general ideas.

 

Now that said, I think Moore does a better job of making his case this time around rather than beating you over the head with it. In Bowling for Columbine you got the sense that he was at least trying to not just "preach to the choir" and this time that feeling comes across even more. He doesn't completely succeed, but there seems to be progress in his technique.

[yaebginn]

MM is so dishonest. I found much of the things in his movie to be crazy with lies. Like, it wasnt that no one would take the papers. Soem did, but MM just cut it out to prove his point. and the headlines at the beginning of the movie. Where it says Gore beat Bush. He just cut/copied it from a letter to the editor article and said it was the front page. The movie was one big lie. I mean, I am no political buff, but even I could see his lies.

[SkinWalker]

And those are two very minor parts in the whole movie. Both of which I recognized as typical stunts and designed to entertain as much to provide a point.

 

Surely if Moore is that dishonest you can find similar holes in the allegations that he made regarding Bush. You make very critical remarks about Moore, which may or may not be founded, but you've yet to rebuke anything but his minor stunts. What about the allegation that the Bush family has unethical ties to the Saudi royal family? Or the Harken/Arbusto debacles? Or...?

[Crazy_dog no.3]

I would say fact, but twisted fact. It's more or less true but Moore is obviously biased so he is bound to put a spin on things or tweak them a little.

 

Like say, one newspaper that was shown in the movie was slightly edited.

[yaebginn]

thats cause I ahvent seen it

[SkinWalker]

Not a lot you can say about it then, eh?

 

delete's yaebginn's vote from the poll.

[yaebginn]

who said I voted?

[Crazy_dog no.3]

LOL!

[jokemaster]

Well, it's based on facts, but like almost all documentaries, it's shown in a way to make you think that the view of the maker of the film is correct.

[yaebginn]

did you guys see McCain burn Michael Moore at the Convention last night? It was great.

[Darth Groovy]

Haven't seen F/911, but have any of you seen this?

[tFighterPilot]

Originally posted by Darth Groovy

Haven't seen F/911, but have any of you seen this?

THAT IS SOME CREPPY ****!

 

God bless conspiracies!

[abcd1234]

Originally posted by Darth Groovy

Haven't seen F/911, but have any of you seen this?

 

That is some crazy stuff. Kinda makes you think about just what the government wants us to really know.

[Master_Ginn]

Well i've watched some of MM's movies and liked them the first time i watched them. But after kind of growing up and forming my own opinions i think he is factual about what he wants to be facts. He knows a lot about what he wants to know. Did anyone see the interveiw with Bill O'reiley? Well it seemed to me that MM didn't have a clue about anything, other than bashing Bush.

[rccar328]

I watched F-9/11 a month or so ago after my brother told me what a load of crap it was (and is)...he was running the projector at a movie theater and had to watch it over and over...that's about the only time I ever felt sorry for him. I assumed it was a load of crap the first time I'd heard about it, but I wanted to see it for myself.

 

While I can see how many people would find it convincing, this, like any of Moore's films, requires further examination to truly discover it's truth or falsehood.

 

I found this to be very enlightening:

59 deceits in F-9/11

(this is a PDF document...Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view)

 

Something else that I found very interesting was the fact that Moore said that he had footage of American troops abusing Iraqi prisoners back in December '03, long before the story was discovered by the press. There were some rumors in January '04 of an internal Pentagon investigation, but the story didn't really break until the spring.

 

If Moore really cared so much, why did he sit on the footage that he had until the release of his film, unless he was looking to profit from it? Wouldn't a truly patriotic citizen want to stop the abuse as soon as possible?

 

Anyway, my opinion of F-9/11 is that it's a piece of propaganda not worth the film it's printed on.

[jokemaster]

Originally posted by rccar328

I watched F-9/11 a month or so ago after my brother told me what a load of crap it was (and is)...he was running the projector at a movie theater and had to watch it over and over...that's about the only time I ever felt sorry for him. I assumed it was a load of crap the first time I'd heard about it, but I wanted to see it for myself.

 

While I can see how many people would find it convincing, this, like any of Moore's films, requires further examination to truly discover it's truth or falsehood.

 

I found this to be very enlightening:

59 deceits in F-9/11

(this is a PDF document...Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view)

 

Something else that I found very interesting was the fact that Moore said that he had footage of American troops abusing Iraqi prisoners back in December '03, long before the story was discovered by the press. There were some rumors in January '04 of an internal Pentagon investigation, but the story didn't really break until the spring.

 

If Moore really cared so much, why did he sit on the footage that he had until the release of his film, unless he was looking to profit from it? Wouldn't a truly patriotic citizen want to stop the abuse as soon as possible?

 

Anyway, my opinion of F-9/11 is that it's a piece of propaganda not worth the film it's printed on.

Patriotism=/=morality.

[toms]

those "deciets" have been mentioned several times before... there is a post on his website where he answers a lot of them.

 

Most of them aren't really a problem, but there is the odd bit where he is a bit flippant with the truth. mostly.