Zhukov
VIP Member
As some may have read, Spillmind sent me a check for $15 to go see F9/11. This is more a critic of the contents of the movie than it is of a general review of the movie. So I put it in this forum. Here's the movie review proper.
Today me, and only 7 other people, went and saw Fahrenheit 9/11 at a theatre in a small room which probably still could have sat 60 or 70 people.
That's how Michael Moore would have described it at least, provided he wasn't a supporter of the movie.
That's why when you testify in court, you aren't told to swear to simply tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth.
The movie begins where else but at the Gore campaign headquarters in Florida at the conclusion of the 2000 presidential election (because some people just cant let it go). Or at least what was supposed to be the conclusion of the 2000 presidential election.
What follows is a montage of major news networks erroneously declaring the state of Florida for Vice President Gore. Then, when the only network that bothered to wait for polls to close, FOXNEWS, calls the state of Florida for Bush suddenly there's a problem. Do we investigate why every single other news network called the election for Gore before the polls even close and why they were wrong? Nah, let's talk about how George Bush knows a guy at FOXNEWS and how George's brother is the Governor of Florida. Get the connection? Me neither.
Of course that's irrelevant anyway, what counts is the actually vote. So lets get to that. Considering that there is footage in this film from as late as April 2004, you would think that Mr. Moore had seen this report, it is a wonder then why he provides an earlier news report that claims that Gore would have won the recount. Is it a lie? Well, that news report most likely did in fact get aired, so no. Is it deceiving? You bet.
Then we get some sappy sad music over the circus scene of the debasement of our Congress that occurred after the election. A number of Democratic members of the House of Representatives came before a Joint Session to complain, scream, and make unfounded accusations for the sole purpose of complaining, screaming, and making unfounded accusations. They we're one by one ordered to their seats because, in short, they weren't following congressional rules and were wasting time.
I remember seeing this live on CSPAN, and of course the whole thing was orchestrated by Congressional Democrats. Knowing full well that they couldn't formulate and defend a legitimate objection (certainly there are Democratic Senators are there not?), they just had one Representative after another come to the podium to rant and rave. Not a few of whom were censured for outright lying.
The voice over of Michael Moore claims that the protestors at the President's inauguration were there to "reclaim what had been taken from them." As nothing had been taken from them, that is a lie.
In describing the President's first 8 months before 9/11, while he says "relaxing at Camp David" there's a picture of the President walking with British PM Tony Blair. International diplomacy doesn't sound like a vacation to me, but who knows, maybe they just played tennis.
After all this we get our opening credits, which show a variety of Administration officials getting primped for TV appearances. I'm not sure what Moore hoped to accomplish with this montage. I doubt the fact that some scenes, like Wolfowitz wetting his comb in his mouth before running it through his hair and Ashcroft laughingly asking the make-up artists to make him look young, actually made them seem more human to me was his intention. But who knows. It wouldnt be the only time he contradicted himself.
Then we come to September 11th, 2004. What do we get? A blank screen. Ill explain why I think he did that later.
After the President is told when the first plane strikes the first tower, the voice over says the President decided go ahead with his photo op. Well what is he implying? Nothing, hes just apparently incapable of understanding that news that a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center didnt necessarily mean anything on that September morning other than a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. It was being reported as an accident on the news right up until the second plane crashed into the second tower on live television.
When the second plane does hit the tower, and Bush is informed of the fact, we get some shots of the President. Now Ive heard this scene described showing a scared or confused President Bush. I saw neither. I saw a man repeatedly looking at the children with great concern, eager to leave, but forcing himself to remain calm and seated. He wasnt scared, but it was obvious that at that moment that was the last place he wanted to be.
The voice over also takes a shot at the President, saying no one else was doing anything, and no one was there to tell him what to do. Then they show Ari Flischer, the press secretary, as if in a situation like this he can do anything but get out of the way.
Finally, at that point, what could the President have really done? I dont know, and Mr. Moore isnt providing an opinion on the matter.
Later we get the generically titled PDB Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S. I wont bother getting into the relative insignificance of that document.
Then we get the bin Ladens leaving the U.S.A. No mention that they were cleared by the FBI and authorized to leave by Richard Clarke, whos comments are featured prominently elsewhere.
Arguing that members of the bin Laden family should have been interrogated we get a clip from Dragnet, because thats how it works, and an interview with some retired FBI guy who says he would have interviewed them. Swell.
The film says that Usama is a Saudi Arabian, most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and a great deal of the money to fund terrorism came from Saudi Arabia. Why then is it such a surprise that the President would want to have a private talk with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia two days later? It isnt, Im sure they had quite a lot to talk about, but it sure is portrayed as being odd and suspicious in this movie.
Invariably we come to the Presidents military medical record and Mr. Moore makes a huge deal about the fact that another individuals name and the same page is blacked out. He then implies that there must be suspicious goings-on involved with that name (James R. Bath) because it is blacked out. It immediately occurred to me that maybe since the information being released had nothing to do with James R. Bath his privacy was being respected. I was of course right as I found out when I investigated the matter myself. That information, along with a number of other inconsistencies with this film, is provided at the page linked at the bottom.
We get a variety of information regarding the association between the oil interests of a certain Saudi Arabian family, bin Ladens dad, and the oil interests of a wealthy Texas family, the Presidents, with political power. Imagine that? Can you believe wealthy people would try to establish political and economic ties with wealthy and influential Americans? I know, its unbelievable.
The Carlye Group is described as the 11th largest military contracting company. So who cares about the other 10 right?
A division of their company, United Defense, makes the Bradley Armored Vehicle. Wow, if only they could orchestrate a scenario in which the U.S. attacked Iraq, theyd sell dozens of Bradleys.
Then when war is about to break out theres an IPO with profits of $237 million on day one. Id like $237 million, but Im guessing thats chump change to these guys. And beyond that, Im really sorry if Mr. Moore doesnt like capitalism. Im sure Cuba would be happy to have him.
Or theres the comparison to the amount of money that Saudi Arabians have invested in Bush related companies (although the devious implication is that it was directly given to the President, which, at 1.4 billion, would make him almost as rich as the Kerrys) versus the amount of the Presidents yearly salary. Implying that it would be naturally for the President of the United States loyalty to be decided by this fact alone. As if people even run for President for the salary. That point fell flatter than most.
Theres the lady worrying aloud, I need to know what happened, in reference to defending the establishment of a public 9/11 inquiry.
Terrorists flew airplanes into buildings and killed your husband, and thousands of others. The people who actually did it are obviously dead, but were looking for the people that helped them and goaded them on and were going to kill them. Ok?
The secret service guards Prince Bandar? Is that so strange? Especially after 9/11?
Finally we get to Afghanistan:
On the one hand we only went there because it would have been too obvious if we went to Iraq first.
On the other hand we went there to build a pipeline.
On the other other hand we shouldnt have gone at all.
On the fourth hand we didnt send enough troops.
We have the comment Im a war president from the President, and a derisive comment about this therefore requiring the fabrication of a war, but this is provided before we even get to Iraq, as opposed to a year after the invasion of Iraq, when the statement was made.
He makes statements about Terror Alert warnings raised just for the hell of it, and implies a complicity with the media that simply does not exist.
We have homeland security:
On the one hand we have a man who says, my rights have been trampled on and yet not one example of anything to support that comment is offered. But the implication is Post-Patriot Act America is Orwellian.
On the other hand we have a long segment about how there are not enough state troopers in Oregon. Implication, homeland security is too lax.
We have statements where Mr. Moore seems to be the authority on homeland security, a ridiculous picture of pre-war Iraq, his lies about Saddam never threatening to kill Americans, his distortion of the coalition of the willing by deliberately mentioning only 6 members with probably the smallest contributions. Countries like England and Poland were noticeably absent from mention.
Then theres Iraq and Saudi Arabia:
On the one hand the President is a stooge of Saudi Arabian oil money.
On the other hand he invaded a neighboring moslem country over the vehement objections of the Saudi Arabians.
The shameless exploitative nature of the repeated interviews with Mrs. Lipscomb.
An old ladies comment that the Iraqis will never be free. Geez all I needed was an old lady to tell me that.
His veiled insinuations concerning the Marine recruiters.
On the one hand I should hate the callous evil soldiers who are harassing, humiliating, and killing innocent Iraqis.
On the other hand I should feel nothing but anger at the administration when some come back wounded, crippled, or dead.
I honestly could go on and on (I took notes) but Im sure those who want to get the picture just fine.
But I did mention that the actual events of 9/11 received a blank screen with only the sounds of explosions and screaming. Why is that do you suppose?
Perhaps it is because if people were reminded of the sheer truth of the horror perpetrated against our people with the undeniable images of lunatics flying loaded passenger planes into skyscrapers it would be far more diffucult for them to be convinced into believing in Mr. Moores skewed version of reality. Just a thought.
A link of now 59 deceits in F9/11:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Today me, and only 7 other people, went and saw Fahrenheit 9/11 at a theatre in a small room which probably still could have sat 60 or 70 people.
That's how Michael Moore would have described it at least, provided he wasn't a supporter of the movie.
That's why when you testify in court, you aren't told to swear to simply tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth.
The movie begins where else but at the Gore campaign headquarters in Florida at the conclusion of the 2000 presidential election (because some people just cant let it go). Or at least what was supposed to be the conclusion of the 2000 presidential election.
What follows is a montage of major news networks erroneously declaring the state of Florida for Vice President Gore. Then, when the only network that bothered to wait for polls to close, FOXNEWS, calls the state of Florida for Bush suddenly there's a problem. Do we investigate why every single other news network called the election for Gore before the polls even close and why they were wrong? Nah, let's talk about how George Bush knows a guy at FOXNEWS and how George's brother is the Governor of Florida. Get the connection? Me neither.
Of course that's irrelevant anyway, what counts is the actually vote. So lets get to that. Considering that there is footage in this film from as late as April 2004, you would think that Mr. Moore had seen this report, it is a wonder then why he provides an earlier news report that claims that Gore would have won the recount. Is it a lie? Well, that news report most likely did in fact get aired, so no. Is it deceiving? You bet.
Then we get some sappy sad music over the circus scene of the debasement of our Congress that occurred after the election. A number of Democratic members of the House of Representatives came before a Joint Session to complain, scream, and make unfounded accusations for the sole purpose of complaining, screaming, and making unfounded accusations. They we're one by one ordered to their seats because, in short, they weren't following congressional rules and were wasting time.
I remember seeing this live on CSPAN, and of course the whole thing was orchestrated by Congressional Democrats. Knowing full well that they couldn't formulate and defend a legitimate objection (certainly there are Democratic Senators are there not?), they just had one Representative after another come to the podium to rant and rave. Not a few of whom were censured for outright lying.
The voice over of Michael Moore claims that the protestors at the President's inauguration were there to "reclaim what had been taken from them." As nothing had been taken from them, that is a lie.
In describing the President's first 8 months before 9/11, while he says "relaxing at Camp David" there's a picture of the President walking with British PM Tony Blair. International diplomacy doesn't sound like a vacation to me, but who knows, maybe they just played tennis.
After all this we get our opening credits, which show a variety of Administration officials getting primped for TV appearances. I'm not sure what Moore hoped to accomplish with this montage. I doubt the fact that some scenes, like Wolfowitz wetting his comb in his mouth before running it through his hair and Ashcroft laughingly asking the make-up artists to make him look young, actually made them seem more human to me was his intention. But who knows. It wouldnt be the only time he contradicted himself.
Then we come to September 11th, 2004. What do we get? A blank screen. Ill explain why I think he did that later.
After the President is told when the first plane strikes the first tower, the voice over says the President decided go ahead with his photo op. Well what is he implying? Nothing, hes just apparently incapable of understanding that news that a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center didnt necessarily mean anything on that September morning other than a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. It was being reported as an accident on the news right up until the second plane crashed into the second tower on live television.
When the second plane does hit the tower, and Bush is informed of the fact, we get some shots of the President. Now Ive heard this scene described showing a scared or confused President Bush. I saw neither. I saw a man repeatedly looking at the children with great concern, eager to leave, but forcing himself to remain calm and seated. He wasnt scared, but it was obvious that at that moment that was the last place he wanted to be.
The voice over also takes a shot at the President, saying no one else was doing anything, and no one was there to tell him what to do. Then they show Ari Flischer, the press secretary, as if in a situation like this he can do anything but get out of the way.
Finally, at that point, what could the President have really done? I dont know, and Mr. Moore isnt providing an opinion on the matter.
Later we get the generically titled PDB Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S. I wont bother getting into the relative insignificance of that document.
Then we get the bin Ladens leaving the U.S.A. No mention that they were cleared by the FBI and authorized to leave by Richard Clarke, whos comments are featured prominently elsewhere.
Arguing that members of the bin Laden family should have been interrogated we get a clip from Dragnet, because thats how it works, and an interview with some retired FBI guy who says he would have interviewed them. Swell.
The film says that Usama is a Saudi Arabian, most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and a great deal of the money to fund terrorism came from Saudi Arabia. Why then is it such a surprise that the President would want to have a private talk with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia two days later? It isnt, Im sure they had quite a lot to talk about, but it sure is portrayed as being odd and suspicious in this movie.
Invariably we come to the Presidents military medical record and Mr. Moore makes a huge deal about the fact that another individuals name and the same page is blacked out. He then implies that there must be suspicious goings-on involved with that name (James R. Bath) because it is blacked out. It immediately occurred to me that maybe since the information being released had nothing to do with James R. Bath his privacy was being respected. I was of course right as I found out when I investigated the matter myself. That information, along with a number of other inconsistencies with this film, is provided at the page linked at the bottom.
We get a variety of information regarding the association between the oil interests of a certain Saudi Arabian family, bin Ladens dad, and the oil interests of a wealthy Texas family, the Presidents, with political power. Imagine that? Can you believe wealthy people would try to establish political and economic ties with wealthy and influential Americans? I know, its unbelievable.
The Carlye Group is described as the 11th largest military contracting company. So who cares about the other 10 right?
A division of their company, United Defense, makes the Bradley Armored Vehicle. Wow, if only they could orchestrate a scenario in which the U.S. attacked Iraq, theyd sell dozens of Bradleys.
Then when war is about to break out theres an IPO with profits of $237 million on day one. Id like $237 million, but Im guessing thats chump change to these guys. And beyond that, Im really sorry if Mr. Moore doesnt like capitalism. Im sure Cuba would be happy to have him.
Or theres the comparison to the amount of money that Saudi Arabians have invested in Bush related companies (although the devious implication is that it was directly given to the President, which, at 1.4 billion, would make him almost as rich as the Kerrys) versus the amount of the Presidents yearly salary. Implying that it would be naturally for the President of the United States loyalty to be decided by this fact alone. As if people even run for President for the salary. That point fell flatter than most.
Theres the lady worrying aloud, I need to know what happened, in reference to defending the establishment of a public 9/11 inquiry.
Terrorists flew airplanes into buildings and killed your husband, and thousands of others. The people who actually did it are obviously dead, but were looking for the people that helped them and goaded them on and were going to kill them. Ok?
The secret service guards Prince Bandar? Is that so strange? Especially after 9/11?
Finally we get to Afghanistan:
On the one hand we only went there because it would have been too obvious if we went to Iraq first.
On the other hand we went there to build a pipeline.
On the other other hand we shouldnt have gone at all.
On the fourth hand we didnt send enough troops.
We have the comment Im a war president from the President, and a derisive comment about this therefore requiring the fabrication of a war, but this is provided before we even get to Iraq, as opposed to a year after the invasion of Iraq, when the statement was made.
He makes statements about Terror Alert warnings raised just for the hell of it, and implies a complicity with the media that simply does not exist.
We have homeland security:
On the one hand we have a man who says, my rights have been trampled on and yet not one example of anything to support that comment is offered. But the implication is Post-Patriot Act America is Orwellian.
On the other hand we have a long segment about how there are not enough state troopers in Oregon. Implication, homeland security is too lax.
We have statements where Mr. Moore seems to be the authority on homeland security, a ridiculous picture of pre-war Iraq, his lies about Saddam never threatening to kill Americans, his distortion of the coalition of the willing by deliberately mentioning only 6 members with probably the smallest contributions. Countries like England and Poland were noticeably absent from mention.
Then theres Iraq and Saudi Arabia:
On the one hand the President is a stooge of Saudi Arabian oil money.
On the other hand he invaded a neighboring moslem country over the vehement objections of the Saudi Arabians.
The shameless exploitative nature of the repeated interviews with Mrs. Lipscomb.
An old ladies comment that the Iraqis will never be free. Geez all I needed was an old lady to tell me that.
His veiled insinuations concerning the Marine recruiters.
On the one hand I should hate the callous evil soldiers who are harassing, humiliating, and killing innocent Iraqis.
On the other hand I should feel nothing but anger at the administration when some come back wounded, crippled, or dead.
I honestly could go on and on (I took notes) but Im sure those who want to get the picture just fine.
But I did mention that the actual events of 9/11 received a blank screen with only the sounds of explosions and screaming. Why is that do you suppose?
Perhaps it is because if people were reminded of the sheer truth of the horror perpetrated against our people with the undeniable images of lunatics flying loaded passenger planes into skyscrapers it would be far more diffucult for them to be convinced into believing in Mr. Moores skewed version of reality. Just a thought.
A link of now 59 deceits in F9/11:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
