Lies of F911

[Palestinian Jew]

There have been a lot of news reports about the lies of f911 and I have mostly avoided them because I want to hear the initial argument first before I hear the counter-argument, it seems like O'Reilly has devoted a few days of his radio factor just to bashing Moore. Well, I've finally watched the movie and now I'm ready to start looking at what the other side says.

Anyone know a good website that has all of the supposed lies of this film, fahrenheit 9/11?

 

[007]

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT



Moore: Trying to have it three ways

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.


In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.


Recruiters in Michigan

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

Read full story... http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

 

[west2004]

"The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group. " - pale rider

Let us not forget that the theatres that plays Moores movie are largely made up of theatres owned by Loews.

Why is this important?


Because they are a member of the infamous carlyle group. This means that Micheal Moore is having his pockets filled with cash from the Carlyle Group. So, Moore should not be talking about the Carlyle group when he too is linked to them.

 

[007]

Originally posted by west2004
"The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group. "

DO NOT... I repeat... DO NOT make such outlandist statements unless you can prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Not either prove it, or shut the fuck up.

 

[west2004]

Dude, that was me quoting what you said.

Also, I just used it to discuss the link between Michael Moore and the Carlyle Group.

Perhaps you did not see this part (hint: I am against Micheal Moore)

"Let us not forget that the theatres that plays Moores movie are largely made up of theatres owned by Loews.

Why is this important?


Because they are a member of the infamous carlyle group. This means that Micheal Moore is having his pockets filled with cash from the Carlyle Group. So, Moore should not be talking about the Carlyle group when he too is linked to them." - me

 

[west2004]

Here is my proof:

http://www.newsmax.com/printer.cfm?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/27/120331.shtml

 

[007]

Originally posted by west2004
Dude, that was me quoting what you said.

Also, I just used it to discuss the link between Michael Moore and the Carlyle Group.

Perhaps you did not see this part (hint: I am against Micheal Moore)

"Let us not forget that the theatres that plays Moores movie are largely made up of theatres owned by Loews.

Why is this important?


Because they are a member of the infamous carlyle group. This means that Micheal Moore is having his pockets filled with cash from the Carlyle Group. So, Moore should not be talking about the Carlyle group when he too is linked to them." - me

"I" didn't actually say that. That author of the article did. And if you read it, you'd see that that point is one made by mickey, and the author goes on to debunk it as a lie.

Sorry I jumped on you. moore pisses me off more than anyone I know to think of.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The accounts of Dubbyuh's financial ties to House Saud and House bin Laden are all matters of public record. This also applies to the flights on 9/13/2001 which whisked members of House bin Laden out of the country. The facts asserted in Moore's movie are all independently verifiable, and sayinfg they're not is much like the Administration's continuing insistence that there was a substantial link between Al Qaeda when all of the evidewnce AND findings say otherwise.

Have a nice day

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
The accounts of Dubbyuh's financial ties to House Saud and House bin Laden are all matters of public record. This also applies to the flights on 9/13/2001 which whisked members of House bin Laden out of the country. The facts asserted in Moore's movie are all independently verifiable, and sayinfg they're not is much like the Administration's continuing insistence that there was a substantial link between Al Qaeda when all of the evidewnce AND findings say otherwise.

Have a nice day

Not exactly Bully:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off....

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Not exactly Bully:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

The points, except for the last one, are all matters of public record dear. This information has been available to the publice for several years...It was just a matter of "connecting the dots" so people can see what a scumbag Dubbyuh really is.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
The points, except for the last one, are all matters of public record dear. This information has been available to the publice for several years...It was just a matter of "connecting the dots" so people can see what a scumbag Dubbyuh really is.

Bully, Sweetheart...! You just can't handle what's happening.

YOU have a nice day!

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
The accounts of Dubbyuh's financial ties to House Saud and House bin Laden are all matters of public record. This also applies to the flights on 9/13/2001 which whisked members of House bin Laden out of the country.

Who was responsible for those flights?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Who was responsible for those flights?

Not to mention that it wasn't Bush who authorized them, but the past hero of the left, Richard Clark. LOL :

 

[Annie]

Well Bully,
I'm off to class. I'll be waiting for the chance to ready your reply.

Do have a nice day!

 

[MtnBiker]

Damn it Kathianne I wanted Bully to respond.


Yup she right(of course), the left's precious Richard Clarke was the one responsible.

It turns out that President Bush and other top members of his administration had nothing to do with the decision to let members of Osama bin Laden's family depart the United States in the days immediately after 9/11, despite the suggestions of Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Charles Schumer of New York.

Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism official and author of a recent book blasting the Bush administration's handling of intelligence leading up to the terrorist attacks, told The Hill newspaper last week that he gave the go-ahead for two members of the bin Laden family and other Saudi nationals to leave the U.S.

"It didn't get any higher than me," Clarke told The Hill . "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again."

link

Was that in Moore's film?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Damn it Kathianne I wanted Bully to respond.


Yup she right(of course), the left's precious Richard Clarke was the one responsible.

link

Was that in Moore's film?

Had about 3 minutes til have to work, had to see his response.
:

 

[007]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Bully, Sweetheart...! You just can't handle what's happening.

YOU have a nice day!

Him and several others.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RE: Bush and Saudi Connections. At least bush is willing to jeopardize those connections when our security comes into play. The U.N. eurosocialist scumasses would have kept saddam in power forever, regardless of his actions or threats to civilized nations, as long as they kept getting their corrupt oil for food earnings.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

There are ties between companies Bush has been a part of with saudi/bin laden connections, but I don't see that as a bad thing. We have to do business with the Saudis, they control the largest reserve of oil, and there are so many bin ladens, almost all of which have broken ties to UBL, that doing business with them is not necessarily a bad thing.

Moore just shows all of these connections and leaves us to decide. I personally am not afraid of it, although the 5-7% of America Saudi Arabia owns makes me very uneasy.

I didn't see in the piece where he backed up his argument that there were sufficient ground troops in Afghanistan quickly enough.

Number 6 of Christopher Hitchen's points is ridiculous.

I'm hoping that the other side has more than this, because so far its pathetic. Half or more of the movie deals with Iraq, and, imo, thats where the movie really starts rolling.

 

[Annie]

Actually PJ, there were ties with Bush 41, not 43.