June 25, 200422 yr 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Turns Up the Heat By Desson Thomson Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 25, 2004; Page WE33 "FAHRENHEIT 9/11," is a guided missile aimed directly at the presidency of George W. Bush, just four months ahead of the national election. Its political purpose is unequivocal. But here's the part that matters: Its trajectory is guided with pinpoint accuracy. With an ironic narrative that takes us from the Florida debacle that decided the 2000 presidential election to the political nettling aftermath of war in Iraq, "Fahrenheit 9/11" sagely uses the public record, the facts and the president's goofiest statements and on-camera performances to score its points. Documentaries aren't news articles; they're subjective points of view, which is why Moore has almost endless fun at the president's expense. (Attorney General John Ashcroft gets his share of ridicule, too.) "Fahrenheit 9/11" obviously skews facts to its own advantage, but that's what the game is all about. What counts is the emotional power of Moore's persuasion. With a combination of events and facts that we have already learned, and some that we haven't, Moore puts it all together. You can understand the thread of his argument, even if you disagree. What's remarkable, too, is Moore's departure from his usual obnoxious bluster. This is the first film from Moore where you don't think about the shrillness of his sanctimony so much as the urgency of his outrage. He lets the documentary speak for itself: a radical strategy for a man best known for megaphone-toting rantings and candid-camera-style stunts. What are the movie's points? It accuses the president and his inner circle (including James Baker and financial adviser James R. Bath) of being so financially and personally connected to friends in high Saudi Arabian places, they were too compromised to take decisive action against Osama bin Laden. The film also claims that, after planes struck the World Trade Center in 2001, and there was a moratorium on all commercial flights around the country, the Bush administration helped many members of the wealthy bin Laden family evacuate the country -- by plane. The strong implication is that these evacuations were performed during the flight ban. This may be the film's iffiest moment, in terms of accuracy, but there's no easy way to verify or discredit this. If it is indeed true, it's an explosive revelation. The director makes many more of his points in dramatic, emotional ways. He documents, for instance, how the president was busier practicing his golf swing and clearing brush than paying attention to terrorist threats before Sept. 11, 2001. He opines that the color codes that we have learned to live by -- the red and orange alerts that indicate the severity of a terrorism risk -- were part of a strategy to petrify the nation into support for an Iraq invasion. In one of the most stunning scenes, we watch the president attending an elementary school class on that ill-fated morning. An aide whispers to him news of the plane crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The look on Bush's face is stunned, as any person's would be. A clock ticks away. The president looks as though he'll never get up from that seat. The minutes tick by. "Was he wondering if he should have shown up to work more often?" Moore says in voice-over. The president stares at the children's book he's holding. It's called "My Pet Goat." This would seem to be mere partisan tomato-hurling, if we hadn't just observed the previous scene: the attack on Manhattan. For that devastating event, Moore shows only a black screen. We hear the buzzing of the aircraft. We know what's coming. We hear the impact and, a second later, the agonized cries and gasps of the witnesses. Then comes the second crash. Only then does Moore cut to the faces of those watching. A tearful woman cries out to God to save the souls of those leaping from the windows. Another, devastated, sits down on the sidewalk. We don't see the jumpers. But we feel we do. And it makes watching the "My Pet Goat" scene more disturbing than funny. If there was any movie to affect the political middle -- those rare Americans who come to each presidential election without a pre-existing opinion -- this may be it. There are startling scenes during the American invasion of Iraq that include the visceral terror of a household in Baghdad, as young American soldiers break in to arrest someone; and the candid testimony of U.S. troops who express their disgust at the situation there. Perhaps most persuasive of all is the dramatic turnaround experienced by Lila Lipscomb, a Michigan mother. She changes from patriotic support for the Bush administration to heartbroken despair after she loses a son to the war. In one of the film's most affecting moments, Lipscomb finds herself facing an Iraqi woman who sits before cardboard placards protesting the war on Lafayette Square, right in front of the White House. Two people on opposing sides, suddenly find themselves experiencing common ground. Moments like this mark "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a potential cultural juggernaut -- a film for these troubling times. FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (R, 112 minutes) -- Contains footage of war dead and wounded, including children. Area theaters. LINK Last chance to exercise your right to a dissenting opinion.
June 25, 200422 yr I refuse to pay to see anything that this idiotic, psychopathic slob produces. The obnoxious left wing extremist propaganda that Michael Moore tries to spread never ceases to amaze me, and to be honest I find it disgusting.
June 25, 200422 yr Lcyberlina, read the link rippyo provided...i'll see it soon enough and I'm sure moore won't surprise me. if non-sensationalists, like "the corporation" sensationalize, moore has no chance.
June 25, 200422 yr Lcyberlina, read the link rippyo provided...i'll see it soon enough and I'm sure moore won't surprise me. if non-sensationalists, like "the corporation" sensationalize, moore has no chance. I read it before RippyO posted it here.
June 25, 200422 yr okay, then let's stop pretending that michael moore's film is going to be gushing with deception. The god damn man lies about tiny little things (which I know personally).
June 25, 200422 yr okay, then let's stop pretending that michael moore's film is going to be gushing with deception. The god damn man lies about tiny little things (which I know personally). Have you seen the movie? Again the answer is no. Once you see it we can come back here and debate its veracity. How about that?
June 25, 200422 yr okay, then let's stop pretending that michael moore's film is going to be gushing with deception.? The god damn man lies about tiny little things (which I know personally). Have you seen the movie? Again the answer is no. Once you see it we can come back here and debate its veracity. How about that? There were significant deceptions even in the short trailer. TDNBW for the rest. Well tell me about the "Significant" deceptions in the trailer, besides Bush's mocking face.
June 25, 200422 yr okay, then let's stop pretending that michael moore's film is going to be gushing with deception. The god damn man lies about tiny little things (which I know personally). Have you seen the movie? Again the answer is no. Once you see it we can come back here and debate its veracity. How about that? Hmm, so unless I read Mein Kampf, should I not presume it's racist? right...
June 25, 200422 yr Well tell me about the "Significant" deceptions in the trailer, besides Bush's mocking face. The talk on the steps with the congressman - Moore edits out the guys response. The fellow's response would have made Moore's heckling look foolish. There were several news stories on this. Wake up - Moore is a crude propagandist. teah, and how about the whole corporate conspiracy thing. or implying hat the whole congress did not read the patriot act. or the fact Bush is irresponsible for playing golf, something that eisenhower did endlessly.
June 25, 200422 yr Well tell me about the "Significant" deceptions in the trailer, besides Bush's mocking face. The talk on the steps with the congressman - Moore edits out the guys response. The fellow's response would have made Moore's heckling look foolish. There were several news stories on this. Wake up - Moore is a crude propagandist. What lie exactly happened here? As far as I know all Michael was doing was trying to recruit the Members of congress sons and daughters into the military. Where is the lie?
June 25, 200422 yr Well tell me about the "Significant" deceptions in the trailer, besides Bush's mocking face. The talk on the steps with the congressman - Moore edits out the guys response. The fellow's response would have made Moore's heckling look foolish. There were several news stories on this. Wake up - Moore is a crude propagandist. teah, and how about the whole corporate conspiracy thing. or implying hat the whole congress did not read the patriot act. or the fact Bush is irresponsible for playing golf, something that eisenhower did endlessly. He did not imply it... From the trailer (if that is all you saw) there were two congressmen that said it... Not Michael.
June 25, 200422 yr As far as I know all Michael was doing was trying to recruit the Members of congress sons and daughters into the military. Where is the lie? Do you know how stupid just on principle that is? And btw, newsflash: the Congressmen don't read all the bills. They can't, that's why they have a staff. And looking at the members who said this, I mean don't take too much pride in them.
June 25, 200422 yr As far as I know all Michael was doing was trying to recruit the Members of congress sons and daughters into the military. Where is the lie? Do you know how stupid just on principle that is? And btw, newsflash: the Congressmen don't read all the bills. They can't, that's why they have a staff. And looking at the members who said this, I mean don't take too much pride in them. I'm not taking pride in people I don't even know or care to. I'm simply setting the record straight. 1.Moore never implied that they don't read the Patriot Act, because they (the congressmen) were the ones who said it. 2.Why is it "bad" to ask the people who send other people's children to war to sign up their own kids in the military? I think is a valid point he is trying to make. Whether you agree with him politically or not. Calling his film a lie is like saying the last 3 years never happened.
June 25, 200422 yr If someone walked up to you and asked you to send your kid to war, would you? Oh and btw the point is moot regardless, because parents can't send their kids to war. But it doesn't matter either way because it is on a super size screen with popcorn in the laps of the sheep watching it, so they'll take it in and spit out the rhetoric when they leave the theater.
June 25, 200422 yr What lie exactly happened here? As far as I know all Michael was doing was trying to recruit the Members of congress sons and daughters into the military. Where is the lie? A lie of OMISSION. I believe that particular congressman he picked on had relatives in Iraq or some on their way, and the guy stated so. Moore edited out this response because he's a completely lazy sot who couldn't even bother interviewing enough congressman until he stumbled across one who didn't have anyone going to Iraq. IMO, slicing and dicing what people say to make their position look different than what it is in reality is lying. Obviously, you have no problems with this sort of "truth". I give you that. However, the point that Michael is trying to make is that while these people sit comfortably in "air conditioned" rooms (as Wolfwitz himself puts it) somebody else's kids are put on harms way... I don't think this war would have ever happened if all their kids and relatives had to go to war. Furthermore, do you know how many of those more than 500 congressmen have kids in Iraq? Exactly, just ONE.
June 25, 200422 yr Kind of a long review, but interesting: http://www.nypress.com/17/25/film/ArmondWhite.cfm
June 25, 200422 yr Furthermore, do you know how many of those more than 500 congressmen have kids in Iraq? Exactly, just ONE. Do the math, it sounds about right. It's not like we have 3 million soldiers fighting over there. As a matter of fact, it's probably disproportionately high, what with their 400+ million poeple in the US. Also, these aren't conscripted draftees we are talking about. These are volunteers who licked their chops at the tens of thousands of dollars in bennies like the GI bill and didn't figure that they'd have to actually (GASP!) fight a war. As for Moore, it's another example of using an outrageous premise to make politicians looks exploitive. The military, for the most part, is a glorified vocational school designed as a dragnet to capture kids who are too dumb/poor/immature to go to college or hold down a decent job. Go into any middle or upper class area, black or white or anything else, and I guarantee you that the number of kids going into the military is miniscule. Why didn't Moore go into a meeting of the National Democratic Black Caucus and ask them why none of thier kids are in the military? B/C none of their kids are, either.
June 25, 200422 yr Furthermore, do you know how many of those more than 500 congressmen have kids in Iraq? Exactly, just ONE. Now convince me this is a meaningful statistic. It sounds like it might be fairly close to the population in general families with a member in Iraq. Actually no it isn't an statistic. It was said in a news interview. Only one member of congress has a child in Iraq.
June 25, 200422 yr Furthermore, do you know how many of those more than 500 congressmen have kids in Iraq? Exactly, just ONE. Now convince me this is a meaningful statistic. It sounds like it might be fairly close to the population in general families with a member in Iraq. Actually no it isn't an statistic. It was said in a news interview. Only one member of congress has a child in Iraq. It's not a statistic? Is this some new form of charades or something? Ok, gimme a hint. Is it animal, vegetable or mineral? Is it a big pink zebra driving a golf cart? Aww, shucks. I give up. If it isn't a statistic, then what is it then? PS: Happy b-day!!!!
June 25, 200422 yr Furthermore... This is a transcript of the so-called "edited" interview with Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-Minn): Transcript of Interview with Rep. Mark Kennedy. CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY How are you doing? MM: I'm trying to get members of congress to get their kids to enlist in the army and go over to Iraq. Is there any way you could help me with that? CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How would I help you? MM: Pass it out to other members of congress. CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war. CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan. MM: Because there is only one member who has a kid over there in Iraq. This is Corporal Henderson, he is helping me out here. CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How are you, good to see you. MM: There it is, it's just a basic recruitment thing. Encourage especially those who were in favor of the war to send their kids. I appreciate it. CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: Okay, bye.
June 25, 200422 yr Furthermore, do you know how many of those more than 500 congressmen have kids in Iraq? Exactly, just ONE. Now convince me this is a meaningful statistic. It sounds like it might be fairly close to the population in general families with a member in Iraq. Actually no it isn't an statistic. It was said in a news interview. Only one member of congress has a child in Iraq. It's not a statistic? Is this some new form of charades or something? Ok, gimme a hint. Is it animal, vegetable or mineral? Is it a big pink zebra driving a golf cart? Aww, shucks. I give up. If it isn't a statistic, then what is it then? PS: Happy b-day!!!! Then I would have put it in percentage points. I'm telling you what I heard in the news interview. Only one member of congress has a child in Iraq.
June 25, 200422 yr To give you a little bit more of information here is a news article: Senators' Sons in War: An Army of One By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG WASHINGTON, March 21 - As one of 99 senators who voted on Thursday to commend President Bush for his leadership on Iraq, Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, wanted the troops to know that "we are proud of our military, proud of their capability and confident that they will win this war." Mr. Johnson's pride, though, is tinged with a father's fear. He is the lone member of the Senate - and possibly the only member of Congress - whose child is helping in the fighting in Iraq.{...} LINK
June 25, 200422 yr How many members of congress actually have children of a regular fighting age though(18-25 maybe)?
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.