Farenheit 9/11

[readingstockport]

I read on the BBC site, or on TV that LL was born in canada, or raised there. hairsplitter.

Can this be pinned. looney acuses someone else of being a hairsplitter

Oh, and you quote the bbc

 

[alan partridge]

Can this be pinned. looney acuses someone else of being a hairsplitter

Oh, and you quote the bbc

 

[m20gull]

Oh, I think so, yes. Shame you have not quite developed the confidence yet to defend your politics fully on NSC but hopefully that will come and we can look forward to some interesting and honest discussions.

From what you've said in this thread alone, you fit the profile very well, you already gone through some fairly typical Pavlovian rightwing responses to Moore, Panorama, the BBC, etc.

And then you came out with this:

"It can't have surprised anyone that America was going to finish what it (with UN blessing) started in Iraq. Just think how much they have been spending on the Deny Flight operations and the whole Gulf operation in the intervening 10 years. America IS the only global superpower with a commitment to democracy and free speech. And now it seems to be prepared to spend money to prove it."

This paragraph is chocked full of about 5 or 6 separate rightwing assumptions. What's that phrase, "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a duck"?

I'm proud to be a socialist, so come on, m20gull, don't come over all coy about your politics.

I hope my political views are more complex than that. You have inferred from my quote a support for US intervention in Iraq. I have never made up my mind whether they (and the rest of the coalition) were right or not - only history will tell. The Kuwait liberation was supported by the UN. The US and others have spent a small fortune on Gulf operations since 1991. America does have a commitment to democracy and free speech, though as I said later that is a commitment to its own version. And Gulf War 2 is expensive, so the US is prepared to spend money.

I'm proud of my freedom loving principles and try not to be coy about it. If that involves decrying extremism, whether it's left or right wing, that's where I will be.

So two views for you to contemplate - I support local self-determination (why should there not be a Basque country independent from France and Spain?) and the European Union (co-operation and discussion should promote peace, understanding and free trade).

 

[US Seagull]

Don't have the time to read the whole thread but I wanted to respond to a few points here:

Just got back tonight from seeing the film. Agree with you entirely, but there is nothing in there that hasn't already been written about in the press.

The overall message of the film is VALID , but Moore (in my opinion) is opening himself up for criticism with factual errors.

Because of the nitpicking at Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore has been over F 9/11 with a fine tooth comb and hired the former chief fact-checker from the New Yorker. The film has been checked and re-checked for any factual errors. Michael Moore himself even claimed he was considering offering a $10,000 reward for anybody who finds a factual error in the movie. The facts that are presented are solid. You can argue about the conclusions he draws from those facts or the facts that have been omitted, but factually I think the film is solid. It is been held to a much higher standard than any other documentary by the right-wing in America.

Quite strange from a British point of view that our part in the Iraqi war is completely ignored.

The British contribution is actually quite small, IIRC about 8,000 troops compared to 130,000 US troops although the British are the second biggest force in Iraq I don't think you could call it anything by a US show, and that's part of the problem. Michael Moore didn't mention the British contribution to the war in Iraq because it wouldn't have added anything to the story and the point he was trying to make. Sorry if that hurts British feelings.

He makes the point that only a few small countries with no military supported the USA. Quite patronisingly shows old film footage of rural Romanians (to represent Romania) but doesn't mention the UK or Spain !

Come on, it was a joke. Just how advanced is the Romania military anyway? Hardly an international powerhouse.

Also contradicts himself about the war on Aghanistan - is he saying that America shoudn't have sent any troops or didn't send enough Well he says both.....

It's been a couple of weeks since I saw the movie but I don't remember him ever suggesting that troops shouldn't have been sent to Afghanistan. Either way there is nothing wrong with saying you didn't think an invasion should have taken place and then saying that if you're going to do it you should at least do it right. I don't see the problem here.

Showing Iraq as a blissfull country prior to the invasion was a bit much as well.

Well, Iraq was hardly a living hell before the invasion either. I'm sure most Iraqis where probably just getting on with it and trying to live their lives as best they can.

The statement that Iraq never threatened a single American wasn't true either. American hostages were taken in Kuwait.

More than a decade ago.

Totally unnecessary thing to say, and unfortunately right wing critics in America have quickly picked up on things like that.

When Bush said that Saddam attempted to murder his father, it got a big laugh in the cinema, because the film implies that the statement isn't true. Well there is good evidence that there was a Iraq plot to murder Bush Snr overseas, Richard Clarke (who incidently Moore uses in his film to back up his arguments) writes about it in Against All Enemies.

I didn't see it as implying that the statement wasn't true. It's well known that Saddam had plotted to assasinate George Sr. What was funny was the way the Bush Jr. said it. He sounded like some bad b-movie western.

Good film and I agree with its sentiments but Moore gets on my nerves a bit. He is NOT from a working class background as he keeps saying in this and his other films. He was brought up in a posh suburb of the town, and his father (who was wealthy enough to retire early) paid for him to go to University.

I guess we shouldn't shoot the messenger and be glad that AMERICANS are watching this film in droves.

Indeed, when I went to see it the theather was packed solid. Although I do live in a fairly liberal college town.

 

[looney]

I dont spilt hairs just posts facts.

M.Moron is a Fat usless liar but I like polemic/rants so I do have a soft spot for him.

now shush, I dont follow herds to the Cinema I'd rather watch it at home with a spliff.

 

[US Seagull]

I dont spilt hairs just posts facts.

Okay then.....

M.Moron is a Fat usless liar

So you're ready to back that up with facts then? Or did you lie yourself in that you also post ad hominem attacks too?

 

[looney]

You will notice a full stop at the end of the first sentence, paragraph even?

That should be patently obvious that I was posting my opinions.

Let me refraze(damn that looks spelt wrong ).

I will always try to refer to facts posting references/links where and if necerssary,

OK comrade?*


*
www.commiebastards.org.

 

[Hungry Joe.]

I haven't seen it yet but I know Will Self gave it a bit of a slating for being contrived, and he can hardly be accused of being a right-wing establishmentarian. I saw Bowling For Columbine and that left me feeling uneasy. Trying to establish facts in the politics and propganda surrounding any military action is nye on impossible, whoever the story comes from. I suppose Michael Moore at least makes people question the given version, which is no bad thing, but I wouldn't put my house on any of it being 100% water-tight fact.

 

[clapham_gull]

US Seagull, doesn't hurt my feelings that the UK wasn't mentioned !!! I think we've been let off the hook !!!

Didn't expect the film to show ANY UK involvement in the war, it was as say an insignificant number compared to the American troops.

But if you remember, the section was about the "coalition of the willing". He lists the countries allied to Bush and fails to mention the UK, Spain and other Eastern European states which I found odd.

Yes the rural footage of Romanians was funny (I laughed), but again found it quite odd coming from Moore. It wasn't intended to be a representation of the Romanian soldiers, it was meant as a representation of Romanian people. I don't think he can at one moment criticise the American media for false depictions of say Iraqis and then at the same time do the same to other countries.

 

[m20gull]

I dare say Romanians have some recent memories of ridding themselves of a murderous dictator. With their limited financial resources any commitment is generous.

Though they do have rather a lot of oil.........

 

[clapham_gull]

I dare say Romanians have some recent memories of ridding themselves of a murderous dictator. With their limited financial resources any commitment is generous.

Though they do have rather a lot of oil.........

Christmas Day? I remember it well - I was in a neighbouring ex communist state at the time and it was all over the television.

They showed him with the bullet in his head, not long after it happened. Badly dubbed Hale and Pace was on afterwards I remember.

I'm sure the Queen just loves the footage of her driving him round the streets of London in her horse drawn carriage.

 

[Fungus]

Don't think this has been posted yet, but here's MM's factual backup: www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

Now, where can I get a copy of "My Pet Goat"?

 

[clapham_gull]

Although I've been a bit critical of Moore on this thread, I generally agree with the arguments expressed in the film.

Keep banging on about it, but please read Richard Clarkes Against All Enemies (or at least wait till the paperback comes out)... and this comes from somebody from within the Bush administration.

For a good account of how the Bush election was rigged (or ethnic electorate roll cleansing in Florida) - "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast is a great read indeed.

 

[US Seagull]

For a good account of how the Bush election was rigged (or ethnic electorate roll cleansing in Florida) - "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast is a great read indeed.

I'll second that. A very good (and slightly alarming) read.

 

[London Irish]

Although I've been a bit critical of Moore on this thread, I generally agree with the arguments expressed in the film.

Keep banging on about it, but please read Richard Clarkes Against All Enemies (or at least wait till the paperback comes out)... and this comes from somebody from within the Bush administration.

For a good account of how the Bush election was rigged (or ethnic electorate roll cleansing in Florida) - "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast is a great read indeed.

Palast is one of five books balancing there on top of my neatly filed Albion programmes next in line to be read.

Clarke I don't think I will get round to, but I had a good couple of months' debate on that on Fox News, my favourite channel (honestly! US Seagull is right, American politics is WAY more facinating then British politics and you have to know what the loons are saying, it's quite entertaining, the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are scary and funny at the same time), where of course Clarke was smeared in the same way and by the same well-funded websites who are now smearing Moore's film.

LE2, well done on posting the Moore rebuttal page, been meaning to look that up all day.

For those of you who rather hastily made up your mind that Moore was guilty of major factual errors, please read both the "59 nitpicking, hairsplitting red herrings" page posted by m20gull (I dare you to read it all, it's fecking impossible it's so tedious in its non sequiturs) then Moore's rebuttal page, and THEN make up your mind.

Easy, if you want a list of "factual insights" into Bush, go to a Socialist Workers' Party meeting. Thank god, Moore doesn't do anything as boring, tedious and worthy as that.

His films are also entertaining and FUNNY, as well as moving and informative. They have to be all these things, otherwise they don't get released into Middle America's multiplexes. The rightwing smear merchants are of course indulging in the humbug tactic of taking the humour and artistic licence bits of the film and pretending they are the serious parts that need to be "corrected" - bollocks, he's taking the piss out of the rightwing ghouls, and more power to him. A similar thing Easy would be some bore taking you to task for the "factual inaccuracies" in the skits you often write for NSC.

 

[Fungus]

Latest from the BBC:

"The Bush administration is reported to be investigating the possibility of postponing the presidential election in the event of a terror attack."

Democracy or "the enemy within"?

 

[Exiled in Exeter]

I haven’t seen it yet, but I hope to see it soon.

 

[clapham_gull]

Another very good read, Servants of the People by Andrew Rawnsley (about New Labour).

Including a very good account of how Blair and Brown LIED (they're I've said it..) about taking money from Bernie Eccleston so that the Grand Prix could continue to use cigarette advertising.

That chapter more than anything cemented my opinion of New Labour. So much that I will never vote for them.

Not exactly the same as invading Iraq on a false premise, but they lied 100% and got away with it because of their standing in the polls.

I think this is a great book because it was written very early on in the labour government but foresaw what a bunch of arseholes they are.

Another absolute MUST READ is the Tom Bowyer book on Jeffrey Archer. Can't remember the title.

Its very funny. Archer comes across as a right Del Boy, not lovable - but a very corrupt chancer, down to selling dodgy muscle building pamphets in his early years. You wont like Archer at the end, but you will laugh at how he managed to get where he did. He was always going to implode though....

Can't anybody recommend any books ??

 

[clapham_gull]

I really liked the Richard Clarke book (here I go again).

Because it was written by a member of the politicial establishment and is in parts very supportive of the UN military intervention I find his criticism of Bush very interesting.

He was a guy who has worked for Clinton and Bush senior but still sees Bush jnr as a bit of a muppet.

Very funny bit where Clarke gets in contact with the FBI about the Tokyo subway attack and asks whether they have a file on the group responsible. The FBI reply they havent and don't pose a threat to USA security.

Clarke asks whether the FBI have looked them up in the phone book. The FBI think he is joking.

A few minutes later the FBI ring back and tell Clarke they are in the phone book and have an office a few blocks away.

The FBI raid the offices but they have already legged it.

London Irish try to read it (but the hardback is a rip off at £19).

Its interesting alongside what Moore is saying and adds another twist.


I would also recommend "The Rivals" about Blair and Brown and the "Paymaster General" about Geoffrey Robinson, another dodgy New Labour politician.

 

[London Irish]

Al Franken is funnier and more vicious than Moore. "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them" is the actual title of the book - all about Fox News, Ann Coulter, all the rightwing propaganda industry, very funny and entertaining.