Anyone see Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend?

[monsoon]

[Guest donaltopablo]

Do be so quick to judge Mr Moore.

What about the Saudis who flew off on 9/13

I'm not really sure how that changes anything. According to a Tampa Tribune article all of the flights that occured on 9/13 were only domestic, not leaving the country. Moore accurately portrays this in his movie, as he states that they did not actually leave the country until 'after September 13th'. Their flight "out of the country' did not occur until 9/14 when airspace was reopened. In addition, according to the FBI, flights on 9/13 were inspected and Richard Clarke said 'Fine, let it happen'. Not exactly the words of a man concerned about the ramifications of this. In fact, there are references in a NYT article that the FBI supervised some of the flights. So they assembled them on 9/13 (when although Private flights were generally not allowed, some commerical flights had already resumed, it's not like the Saudi domestic flights were the only planes in the air, and let them leave the country on 9/14 when airspace opened.

So like I said, Moore illustrates the entire point in his movie. However, if you want me to go back to some statements are not entirely factual:

Moore own words in F9/11

MOORE (VO): Not even Ricky Martin could fly. But really, who wanted to fly? [A dog walked by the police in an airport terminal.]No one. [Osama bin Laden.] Except the bin Ladens.

Nobody was allowed to fly except the bin ladens? Well, and the resumption of any aircraft interrupted during the grounding on 9/11. New flights were not allowed to fly until the 14th. Maybe moore just mistakenly used a poor choice of words

[monsoon]

[BrandonTO416]

I am so sick of hearing details.

As a liberal, I agree.

Michael Moore takes the truth - then the bends and stretches it to make his point.

He does so to rouse people's attention and to get them to think. He is a provocatuer.

In his book "Stupid White Men" he also derided Bill Clinton in satire and called him the "Best Republican President" we've ever had. That was the title of an entire chapter. Moore is no friend of the Democratic party. He's a Nader supporter in 2000 who woke up and smelled the coffee that he didn't want 4 more years of Bush.

I'm tired of this movie painting every Democrat with the same stroke of the brush.

Secondly - the core messages in the movie ARE TRUE.

He outlined the cozy relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family. He connected the fact that Bin Laden family money is connected to terrorism more then Saddam Hussein, and that an amazing amount of Saudi money is invested into the United States.

While he fudged the details for political gain - the core principles are totally 100% accurate.

To deny this is outright rediculous. To those who haven't seen the movie and continue to deride it, poo on you. Go out and watch it first. Don't leave after 20 minutes either... Let the entire movie soak in.

If nothing else - I think the movie displays that you can't expect a man who's own FAMILY and personal lives that are tied down with a group such as the Saudi royal family to put the interests of Americans first. Bush thinks about the self, as we all do, and the Bush family has too many self interests that conflict with what needs to be done.

If anything, the movie proves this point and its enough for any moderate - i'd think - to disapprove of Bush.

Bush went after Saddam Hussein. He didn't go after the terrorists themselves. He didn't go after their real sources of financing (of which the Saudi Royal Family is more responsible for then Saddam). He isn't addressing the issue of Iran - an openly nuclear wannabe who is testing weapons and is a proven terrorist harboring nation. He isn't addressing the issue of the fact that he didn't focus on Afghanistan enough to root out Al Queada.

And we still sit here and argue over Michael Moore's movie in that its misleading.

Isn't President Bush himself far more misleading then this movie?

Yea, this movie has lots of misleading things in it - especially the scene where he paints Iraq as a peaceful land before the Americans came in to bomb everything. That was over the top for me, I rolled my eyes in the theater when seeing that.

But the point is - its good that an eye-opening through-provoking movie is bringing core facts to life that should have been brought out by the MEDIA.

[BrandonTO416]

Basically at the end of the day, I trust someone more who takes special interest money from FleetBoston and has a special interest in Heinz ketchup over someone who is personally connect with and has a history of great love with the Saudi Royal Family - of which in their kingdom is connected with the Bin Laden family group - which in many ways has money that filters to terrorism all the time.

President George W. Bush has a factual, written, publicly available history that ties him with great Middle Eastern oil interests including the Bin Laden group and the Saudi Royal Family. This puts him at a disadvantage when putting the American people first over his own interests. He has too many oil friends not to put their interests first.

Bush isn't just any Republican... He's a corrupt man with a past connected with the Middle East.

How many Republicans had Saudi money fund his own oil company in the 1980s?!?

Come on people. WAKE UP.

This is so friggen obvious that its beyond sick to me. The fact that Bush has support above 40% amazes me.

[Brickell]

Well said Heckles, well said.

[BrandonTO416]

Your welcome.

After re-reading my posts, you'd think I got dyslexia. I need to stop typing so fast. I'm tired of editing everything.

[Guest donaltopablo]

Here is my issue, why I question Michael Moore and have yet to convict Bush for leading us to war for personal interests.

It's purely speculation. All of the those details your so sick of are what makes it just that, speculation. That's why us moderates aren't sold yet.

[monsoon]

[Guest donaltopablo]

But haven't even seen the film for yourself, so  how you can be convinced or not convinced of what Michael Moore did in the flick.  Sure there are endless websites on the subject of his film and you choose which ones you wish to listen too, but until you see the film for yourself, I am not sure that you nor anyone else who as not seen the film have much room to criticize it.

You can read many of the transcripts on the move online, and more than just someone's paraphrases, but the actual word for word transcripts.

But your right, my statement was a generalized statement towards heckles comments, not just the movie. I should have said 'Moore and others', so it would have been clear.

And I meant it when I said I would see it, when it's free and available in my house. Until then, I'll stick to the transcripts on the internet.

[BrandonTO416]

You've read the entire movie transcript? I somehow don't believe that.

[monsoon]

[Guest donaltopablo]

When one of you two guys send me 8.50 for the movie, and enough money to account for my time, I'll go see it. Until then, I'll stick to the transcripts I've seen. Most of my judgement of Moore has come from what I've seen of him speak, and the transcripts of this movie I've seen.

It's not like I called F911 a lying steaming mound of dog crap.

Oh yeah, you can PM me for my Paypal address. Be sure to include 3% for paypal fees

[Guest donaltopablo]

You've read the entire movie transcript? I somehow don't believe that.

Want me to post the link to the entire transcript, or are you just going to assume I haven't read it? Or better yet, want to assume I've make my assumptions of truth and stretch based of shady websites rather than going to the source and then researching the statements he makes?

You might wanna get KCGhettoboi back if you think I'm some conservative radio follower, lol!

[BrandonTO416]

I have already agreed that much of what Moore did stretches the truth so he can rouse attention. I understand his methods, and I understand his position - which is not always sympathetic to the Democrats.

When I said I didn't want to hear details, I meant I don't like it when you take the minute details and point out that he stretched the truth. I'm already aware of that. The underlying themes in the movie are very true, a point I'm sticking to 100%.

*Bush did authorize flying out the Bin Laden family without interrogating them. Whether it was immediately following 9/11 during the period when no one else could fly (which seeing the records, some of the family members WERE flown out during this), or whether most of them flew out directly after flights resumed is besides the point. The point is that Bush didn't interrogate the family in a proper manner to get at Osama and his terrorist network.

*Bush's family has a direct link with the oil industry, particularly the Saudi Royal family and various other interests - including the Bin Laden group of companies. These interests conflict with American interests - and this makes Bush stand out. Not all Republicans have a history dating back decades of a working relationship with the Bin Laden family and Saudi Royal family as Bush's family does.

*When going after Al Quada directly after September 11th - Bush did not allow US forces to bomb and search for Osama Bin Laden. Rather, he asked the militant Pakistan and Afghan forces to do it FOR us. Remind you the majority of these people could have been considered our enemy before 9/11... This is a lapse in judgement that came from the top, he should be held accountable.

*I do not want to bring this up again, but its true. Bush has confused terrorism with Iraq's dictatorship and has misled the people to believe that Iraq was a particular threat that funded terrorism. This is written, recorded, and videos are available of Cheney and Bush STILL TODAY even after the 9/11 report's release of them still claiming Iraq funded Al Quada. This is NOT TRUE, and never was. The main sources of funding for terrorism that has the most threat against the US has ironically come from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan's drug trade, and Iran.

On another note, I'm not naive. I do know Saddam Hussein hates the United States and would fund terrorism on some level. My point has always been that Iraq was not the greatest threat, and hindsight tells us that they weren't funding terrorism like Bush led us to believe. Maybe he had bad intelligence that they had WMD - I get that. But the intelligence never said they funded terrorism. That's a huge distinction many people still don't seem to get. A matter of fact, intelligence suggests - and still does - that Iraq not having a stable government is leading to MORE terrorism in Iraq in the interim. And it is likely they won't have a stable, sovereign government for 5, 10, 20+ years.

Considering other more gathering threats - I think the Iraq war has been the biggest waste of our resources.

These are only the major points. Screw Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11. I knew this stuff before watching the movie - the movie just put things into a quasi chronological order with Moore's usual exaggerations and techniques thrown in.

I, for one, think his stretching the truth does more to hurt the underlying argument then to promote the underlying truth - but what can you do?

The facts stand. If people want to ignore them, then I find it really sad.

Bush isn't just a Republican, he's an extremist who has made very bad judgements time and time again - both on domestic policy and dealing with the terrorist threat.

[Matthew]

I've heard that Kerry's wife has ties to Saudi Arabia and the Middle-East. I think someone said she has accepted money from them? Is that true, and what effect (if it's true) will it have on the war if Kerry-Edwards is elected? Will Kerry support alternative fuels or ending the war? It's just something I heard recently and wanted to know more.

[BrandonTO416]

No, its not true. Kerry hasn't accepted Saudi Royal money for his campaign - either through his wife or directly through himself. You are hearing Republican propoganda - even if its indirect. I think Rush Limbaugh made that one of his talking points some time ago.

[Dale]

But isn't it true that Kerry's wife is opinionated ?

[Brickell]

And more power to her for being so.

[Dale]

Of course I have no problem with women speaking their mind, nor do I believe this is a problem for most Americans. That said, we all know she had reference to her "shove it" remark - words which do not really fall in the category of opinionization. She was being thin-skinned and disengenuous.

[Brickell]

At this point I'm supposed to call Laura an ugly witch?

Is that what this election about?

[Dale]

At this point I'm supposed to call Laura an ugly witch?

Is that what this election about?

Huh ?

[kota16]

Of course I have no problem with women speaking their mind, nor do I believe this is a problem for most Americans. That said, we all know she had reference to her "shove it" remark - words which do not really fall in the category of opinionization. She was being thin-skinned and disengenuous.

Teresa Heinz Kerry (formerly Teresa Simoes-Ferreira). Born in Mozambique, Africa on October 5th,1938. EDUCATION: Batchelor of Arts in romance languages and literature (French, Portuguese and Italian) from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. In 1963, she graduated from the Interpreters School at the University of Geneva, Switzerland.

[monsoon]

[Dale]

Of course Republicans like to focus on these types of issues as running on their record is something they can't do. So we get constant character assasination and smear tactics instead. And even more hypocritical, somehow these same people think that it perfectly fine for our vice President to tell a Senator to go "fu*ck himself" when he did not like being questioned about Halliburton's no-bid contracts with the government.

You're jumping to conclusions. I have offered no defense of Cheney's remarks. I am focusing on the disingenuity of Heinz-Kerry's remarks. No one else is confusing "shove it !" with being opinionated.