Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and what do you think of it ?

[Maciamo]

There are many disturbing things in this movie, but whatever which side your are in (for or against Bush), it is important to remain critical of all information received.

Micheal Moore tells us that the Bin Laden and Bush families are not just acquaintances, but close business partners and friends. The Saudi Royal family and the Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia two richest and most powerful families would have invested massively in the Bush's oil and arms business and helped George W. get started, Micheal Moore tells us.

Apparently, the Saudi and Bushes plotted together the attack of 9/11, so as to move the American public opinion (partly by controlling the media) to approve war on Iraq and Afghanistan, so as to boost military production, and thus genrate huge profits for arm-maker "Carlyle", which both the Saudis and Bush & co had interests in.

This is very well. But why did Moore try to prove that Bush, Cheny and Wolfowitz immediately asked information to prepare an attack on Iraq and had seemingly little interest in Afghanistan ? What difference does is make for their profits fom military operations to attack one country of another ? Of course, Iraq also had oil, which was the other big interest for the Saudis and
Bushes, but so was Afghanistan where pipelines had to pass from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.

After that he maintains that Bush would have let all the Bin Laden family members out of the US on 9/11.

There is something I do not undersand. If the Bin Laden (and/or Bushes) had plotted the attack of 9/11, why didn't they evacuate their family members before the attack, especially to avoid creating suspicions about their connections with the Bush administration, who let them out. Does that mean they were not aware of the attack, while even Bush had been warned one month before ? Something fishy there.

Furthermore, it also seems that Micheal Moore is on pretty good terms with Bush. Is that just hypocrisy ? If they really are, why did Moore make this movie ? For money, of course, but why not just making a movie supporting Bush, and how did he manage to release his movie and get all his information if Bush had really been opposed to it. If the Bushes and Saudis have enough power and money to destroy the WTC and Pentagon, then blame it on someone else (Saddam, the Talibans...), they should have been able to stop Moore releaving very compromising facts.

So, either this isn't the true story, or key elements are missing.

Is Moore working with Bush and also try mislead the public by citing wrong companies and people's names (although the story might be true) ? It could very well be that they are not afraid of losing the elections (and even manipulate public polls to give a false impression of what the public think before the election), because they will use the same dirty tricks as in 2000 to win again this time, thanks to their power and wealth.

From Fahrenheit 9/11, it seens that the Bush administration and Saudis plotted the whole 9/11 attack for 2 reasons :
1) raise public approval, which was quickly falling, due to Bush's incompetence or disinterest in politics
2) get a reason to start a war and get rich by selling arms and getting oil

It could also be that point one is redundant because Bush would only got elected for the sole purpose of getting rich in the way described in 2), which would explain his smirk everytime he has to lie or fake emotions ("we are going to kick Bin Laden's ass", but really think "how dumb they are to believe me, and think I am the dumb one"), and and also his overwhelming disinterest in the matters of state (long holidays...) and incompetence for the post of president.

 

[Maciamo]

I have checked the webiste of the Carlyle Group, and the Boar of Directors indeed includes James A. Baker, John Major, etc. as Micheal Moore said.
The current Chairman is none else than Frank C. Carlucci, ex-US Secretery of Defense during the Reagan administration. He was also an US army officer and top CIA official. This website (in French) has a full biography and explains the connection with Bush and 9/11. If you read French, don't miss the playing cards of the 52 most dangerous US officials of the Bush regime.

It is also interesting that the Carlyle Groups's website's FAQ includes this :

3. Is The Carlyle Group a defense contractor?

No. Carlyle is an investment firm. Carlyle makes investments in eight different sectors, from automotive and transportation to healthcare and defense. Carlyle's defense investments constitute around 1 percent of our assets under management.
...

8. Is former President George H.W. Bush affiliated with The Carlyle Group?

No. From April 1998 to October 2003 former President Bush was the Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board. He holds no other positions at Carlyle.

9. Is former Philippines President Fidel Ramos affiliated with The Carlyle Group?

No. Former President Ramos served on the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board until the board was disbanded in February 2004.

10. Is former U.K. Prime Minister John Major Chairman of Carlyle Europe?

No. Mr. Major retired from that position in May 2004 and remains a member of the Advisory Boards of Carlyle Europe, Carlyle Europe Venture, and Carlyle/Riverstone Global Energy. There are no plans for a successor.

It's funny how "no" always means "yes" when you read the comments. Don't miss no 7 which list all the US government (ex) officials in the board of directors.

Then :

14. Do you have investments in the Middle East?

Yes. We have several venture capital investments in Israel and one in Turkey. We have no investments in Saudi Arabia.

Of course, it is the other way round. The Saudis have invested in Carlyle !

For more info about the Carlyle Group's involvment in 9/11 and its connection with Bush and Bin Laden, check the following sites :

Here in reality
Bush Watch
Stop the Carlyle Group

Or just search Google with the keywords "Carlyle, Bush, Bin Laden" and maybe Carlucci, Rumsfeld and others too.

 

[mad pierrot]

I don't think Micheal Moore is insinuating that Bush plotted the attacks of Sept. 11th, but rather that exploited it to his own advantage. That is, tried to use the hysteria created by 9/11 to garner support for the invasion of Iraq. As to Moore being on good terms with the Bush family; that's just a joke. I recently read his book Stupid White Men. In it, he makes it clear how much antagonism is between him and the Bush family.

So, either this isn't the true story, or key elements are missing.

This is true. Moore uses much fact mixed in with much insinuations. In a nutshell, it's still propaganda.

Is Moore working with Bush and also try mislead the public by citing wrong companies and people's names (although the story might be true) ?

Check out some interesting articles of Moore's here. Moore has been involved in fighting Bush and Right wing conservatives for a long, long time. Suffice to say, he isn't working for the Bush regime. But his movies can be misleading and vague on many points.

In sum: Moore has made a career out of fighting Republicans and the like, ironically making him a wealthy white man. But, I believe his convictions to be genuine. President Bush, in my views, has been a tool for his constituents. (Aka, the people behind the money that got him elected.) I don't believe he had anything to do with 9/11, other than using the mania created by it to serve his own purposes.

To all the overseas Americans: I hope you've got your absentee ballots!

 

[Maciamo]

In this article, Moore talks about 100min extra in the DVD version. Has anyone seen this extra ?

Anyhow, if Bush gets re-elected, I will believe that money and influence can buy the presidency easily in the US, and that elections (and probably the media too) are rigged. The reason is that Bush has continually lost support since the begining of the War in Iraq, esp. after the abuses on prisoners (just a detail compared to all the civilians killed, but somehow it is what some Americans are sensitive to), and given the fact that at least 20m Americans (about 10% of the electorate) have already seen Fahrenheit 9/11 now, 2 months before the elections. Bush just cannot be having over 50% of support form the voters. If so, then it is half of the Americans people who are to blame, and that would be quite an issue.

 

[mad pierrot]

As much as I hate to admit it Maciamo, I'm afraid much of the American public isn't as intelligent as I would like to believe. I still think Kerry will win, but I'm always amazed at the amount of people in America who really think President Bush is doing a good job.

:?

If so, then it is half of the Americans people who are to blame, and that would be quite an issue.

Tell me about it! The question is, if it's true, where do we start?

 

[senseiman]

Never underestimate the stupidity of the average voter. Outside of deposing Saddam Hussein, at a cost which has totally outweighed whatever benefit that may have achieved, Bush has absolutely nothing positive to show for his first 4 years in office. Job losses, soaring deficits, unwinnable wars, widespread corporate fraud -- these are Bush's legacies. yet somehow it looks like he might get another 4 years to further screw things up.

 

[cicatriz esp]

It's not really stupidity per se; you guys have to understand the power that religion (read: christianity) has over a great portion of the population of the US. An issue that about half of US voters take into consideration before all else is how much the candidate has faith in Jesus. Most of those Americans would say that Bush is more of a "christian" than Kerry. So there goes their vote.

A lot of foreigners come to LA or New York when they visit the US and they think that it is a cosmopolitan country. But if you go beyond the big cities, you will see the real US; the people that vote. A lot of these people have little interest in other countries or cultures and they are VERY religious. But then again, you find this type of people all over the world i guess.
So i would say it is not really money that will determine the election. It's the recommendation of a lot of ministers to their congregation on the sunday before November 2nd.

 

[Glenn]

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? I mean, lots of people seem to go more on emotional appeals than logic. There are many who would say that that is stupidity.

 

[MeAndroo]

There is something I do not undersand. If the Bin Laden (and/or Bushes) had plotted the attack of 9/11, why didn't they evacuate their family members before the attack, especially to avoid creating suspicions about their connections with the Bush administration, who let them out. Does that mean they were not aware of the attack, while even Bush had been warned one month before ? Something fishy there.

I don't think the connections between the Bin Laden family and America is anything new. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there has been an interest in the country, both politically and financially. America DID provide arms and aid to Afghanistan. His family denounced Osama's actions after the bombings of embassies in Africa in 98, and again after 9/11, and have disagreed with his politics for years. Osama has been exiled from Saudi Arabia years ago, supposedly ending his relationship with his family, at least publicly. The Bin Laden family also donates millions to charity, especially in Boston. I think the removal of the family was more a precautionary measure, since there would definitely be public backlash against their family. The way I see it, the idea that the Bin Ladens would know about the attack is flaky at best.

Michael Moore makes a point of saying the movie is "his version of the facts," implying quite directly that it's not the whole truth. He refused to allow his movie to be nominated for Best Documentary, insisting it go for Best Picture, which the right of course insisted means it's not true. Which parts are and are not true is up for debate, but it's still a rather unusual or arrogant move on Moore's part.

As much as I hate to admit it Maciamo, I'm afraid much of the American public isn't as intelligent as I would like to believe. I still think Kerry will win, but I'm always amazed at the amount of people in America who really think President Bush is doing a good job.

It's not necessarily that Bush is doing a great job that gets some people to vote for him, though. A number of people, especially financially established people look forward to Bush's tax breaks, something that Kerry will definitely not continue. Sometimes, it all comes down to money.

President Bush, in my views, has been a tool for his constituents.

I don't see how this distinguishes him from any other politican. Their main concern is to get re-elected.

Job losses, soaring deficits, unwinnable wars, widespread corporate fraud -- these are Bush's legacies. yet somehow it looks like he might get another 4 years to further screw things up.

I'm a little confused as to how you connect corporate fraud with Bush. I concede the war point, but I truly believe Gore would have had to retaliate in some manner as well. I don't think it would have gone this far, but there would definitely have been some sort of violent act in response. The deficit has been around for years, and isn't going anywhere, regardless of the president.

I love how people think Kerry will somehow turn this country completely around. Raising taxes would do little to keep businesses here, at least Bush tried to protect the steel industry, even if what he did was unconstitutional. Kerry voted, along with many other congress members, to avoid taking a vote on the war in Iraq, avoiding any kind of accountability. Kerry has said, even knowing what he knows now, that he would still have given Bush the power to go into Iraq.

That being said, I think neither Kerry nor Bush are fitting candidates for us. I would have thought the democrats could have put up a better candidate (I like Edwards or Dean more), but that's a moot point. Aside from my cynical view of the American elctoral college system, I'm very curious as to how the election will unfold.

 

[mad pierrot]

You know what my greatest fear is?

If President Bush gets voted out of office this November, people on the anti-Bush regime bandwagon might assume that their problems are solved. The Bush regime is more of a sympton of a problem with the political system rather than the root of the issue itself. That root issue being corruption, a seemingly inescapable human condition.
I just hope people remember what got him elected in the first place: complacency.

 

[Maciamo]

But if you go beyond the big cities, you will see the real US; the people that vote. A lot of these people have little interest in other countries or cultures and they are VERY religious. But then again, you find this type of people all over the world i guess.

I have lived in 5 European countries (and now Japan) including in the countryside, and I can say from my experience that very few people can be called "religious", except those over 70 years old. In my secondary school, I remember 2 or 3 people of my age (out of over 200 I knew) being devot Christians, but they were really exceptions. Let's say that 1/3 considered themselves Christians although non practising, 1/3 were agnostic, deists, confused about their believes, or believed in God but not in Christianity, and the the remaing 1/3 were (convinced) atheists or without religion. So that is a very shrap contrast with the US, esp. that my school was not cosmopolitan at all (less than 1% of non-Caucasian people). At university there were too many people to know what their beliefs was, but it was certainly very similar.

I still think Kerry will win, but I'm always amazed at the amount of people in America who really think President Bush is doing a good job.

I think there are mainly 2 categories of Bush supporters :

1) deeply religious country people with little interest in the rest of the world (probably also more toward the less educated lower classes, including the so-called "rednecks", although not just them)

2) rich business people who benefit from tax-cuts and economic policies protecting US industry (esp. energy, health and financial sectors)

I guess that the 2nd category also include some people happy to see the lower-class Americans getting killed in Iraq while they are getting richer. Ironic that these might be the same people as in category 1.

 

[cicatriz esp]

I have lived in 5 European countries (and now Japan) including in the countryside, and I can say from my experience that very few people can be called "religious", except those over 70 years old. .

I didnt mean to imply that they are spread out uniformly; i've had several roommates from Europe (spain, sweden) and each one was exactly as you describe. Go to South/central America, for instance, and your experience may be somewhat different. And of course the middle east.

I've known so many Americans who believe everything they see on TV or the news. That's one of my biggest pet peeves about them.

 

[senseiman]

I'm a little confused as to how you connect corporate fraud with Bush. I concede the war point, but I truly believe Gore would have had to retaliate in some manner as well. I don't think it would have gone this far, but there would definitely have been some sort of violent act in response. The deficit has been around for years, and isn't going anywhere, regardless of the president.

Bush and Corporate fraud? Seems pretty easy to connect the two. Ken Lay, the figure at the centre of the Enron scandal was a member of Bush's inner circle who is believed to have more or less dictated the President's energy policy. Hell, Cheney himself appeared in a commercial for Arthur Anderson -the company whose crooked accounting practices brought Enron down - in which he raved about the company with a little wink-wink nudge-nudge "these guys can cook your books" speil.

Gore would have gotten the US into Afghanistan, but not Iraq. That is a pretty huge difference, given the immense costs and lack of tangible benefits the Iraq war has caused.

The deficit had actually been done away with under Clinton and the government ran at a surplus for a couple of years. But quite suddenly under Bush, not only has it returned but it has reached record new levels.

 

[MeAndroo]

Bush and Corporate fraud? Seems pretty easy to connect the two. Ken Lay, the figure at the centre of the Enron scandal was a member of Bush's inner circle who is believed to have more or less dictated the President's energy policy. Hell, Cheney himself appeared in a commercial for Arthur Anderson -the company whose crooked accounting practices brought Enron down - in which he raved about the company with a little wink-wink nudge-nudge "these guys can cook your books" speil.

The idea that Bush has anything to do with Enron/Arthur Anderson's actual act of fradulent accounting still seems flimsy to me. Energy policy and cooking books are two different things, and I suspect the reason they know each other is simple money. You can buy your way into a politican's inner circle these days, and Bush isn't a pioneer in that sense. Arthur Anderson was a huge accounting name, and just because Cheney appeared in a commercial doesn't mean he had any knowledge about what a select few of its employees were doing. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

The deficit had actually been done away with under Clinton and the government ran at a surplus for a couple of years. But quite suddenly under Bush, not only has it returned but it has reached record new levels.

For some reason I was thinking of the national debt as I was writing this. You're right, the time during Bush's administration will probably see a record breaking deficit, but I'd say Bush's term has been pretty unique for a president, at least recently. If there were an attack on US soil, and I were the pres, I'd be spending money left and right.

 

[JDubG]

As much as I hate to admit it Maciamo, I'm afraid much of the American public isn't as intelligent as I would like to believe. I still think Kerry will win, but I'm always amazed at the amount of people in America who really think President Bush is doing a good job.

For me, I think that President Bush is doing a good job against terrorism currently. We need a leader who will not let things slide like Kerry will... But however, this is what I think... Personally, I think politics is stupid

 

[Satori]

Sorry, I wasn't able to link this:

ZNet | Mainstream Media

Muzzling Michael
Hands off the fat guy in the chicken suit, Mr. Mogul.
by Greg Palast; http://www.gregpalast.com ;May 08, 2004

WHEN the fattened cats at Disney put the kibosh on Michael Moore's new film, 'Fahrenheit 9-11,' they did more than censor an artist. Gagging Moore is only the latest maneuver in suppressing some most uncomfortable facts: the Bush Administration's killing off investigations of Saudi Arabian funding of terror including evidence involving a few members of the bin Laden family in the USA.

I know, because, with my investigative team at BBC television and The Guardian of Britain, I wrote and filmed the original reports on which Moore's new documentary are based.

On November 11, 2001, just two months after the attack, BBC Television's Newsnight displayed documents indicating that FBI agents were held back from investigating two members of the bin Laden family who were fronting for a "suspected terrorist organization" out of Falls Church, Virginia - that is, until September 13, 2001. By that time, these birds had flown.

We further reported that upper level agents in the US government informed BBC that the Bush Administration had hobbled the investigation of Pakistan's Khan Laboratories, which ran a flea market in atomic bomb blueprints. Why were investigators stymied? Because the money trail led back to the Saudis.

The next day, our Guardian team reported that agents were constrained in following the money trail from an extraordinary meeting held in Paris in 1996. There, in the Hotel Monceau Royale, Saudi billionaires allegedly agreed to fund Al-Qaeda's "educational" endeavors.

Those stories ran at the top of the nightly news in Britain and worldwide but not in the USA. Why?

Our news teams picked up several awards including one I particularly hated getting: a Project Censored Award from California State University's school of journalism.

It's the prize you get for a very important story that is simply locked out of the American press.

And that hurts. I'm an American, an L.A. kid sent into journalistic exile in England.

What's going on here?

Why the heck can't agents follow the money, even when it takes them to Arabia? Because, as we heard repeatedly from those muzzled inside the agencies, Saudi money trails lead back to George H.W. Bush and his very fortunate sons and retainers. We at BBC reported that too, at the top of the nightly news, everywhere but America.

Why are Americas media barons afraid to tell this story in the USA? The BBC and Guardian stories were the ugly little dots connected by a single theme: oil contamination in American politics and money poisoning in the blood of our most powerful political family. And that is news that dare not speak its name.

This is not the first time that Michael Moore attempted to take our BBC investigative reports past the US media border patrol. In fact, our joke in the London newsroom is that if we can't get our story on to American airwaves, we can just slip it to the fat guy in the chicken suit. Moore could sneak it past the censors as 'entertainment.'

Here's an example of Moore's underground railroad operation to bring hard news to America: In the Guardian and on BBC TV, I reported that Florida's then Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, removed tens of thousands of Black citizens from voter rolls just prior to the 2000 election. Her office used a list of supposed 'felons' - a roster her office knew was baloney, filled almost exclusively with innocents.

I printed the first installment of that story in the Guardian papers while Al Gore was still in the race. The Washington Post ran my story seven months later. By then, it could be read with a chuckle from the Bush White House.

The Black voter purge story would have never seen the light of day in the USA, despite its front-page play over the globe, were it not for Moore opening his book, 'Stupid White Men,' with it.

So go ahead, Mr. Mickey Mouse mogul, censor the guy in the baseball cap, let the movie screens go dark, spread the blindness that is killing us. Instead, show us fake fly-boys giving the "Mission Accomplished" thumbs up.

It's so much easier, with the lights off, for the sheiks, who lend their credit cards to killers, to jack up the price of oil while our politicians prepare the heist of the next election, this time by computer.

Let's not kid ourselves. Tube news in the USA is now thoroughly Fox-ified and print, with few exceptions, still kow-tows to the prevaricating pronouncements of our commander in chief.

Maybe I'm getting too worked up. After all, it's just a movie.

But choking off distribution of Moore's film looks suspiciously like a hunt and destroy mission on unwanted news, even when that news is hidden in a comic documentary. Why should the media moguls stop there? How about an extra large orange suit for Michael for the new Hollywood wing in Guantanamo?

___________________
Framing Michael Moore
By Joel Bleifuss June 24, 2004

What do Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Michael Moore have in common? They have all fallen victim to Michael Isikoff?s poison pen.
...

Quoting from the article:

Now Isikoff has turned his sights on Moore, lying in Newsweek and on a subsequent appearance on Fox?s ?The O?Reilly Factor? to make the case that Moore is not to be believed.

Isikoff contends that, contrary to the facts presented in Fahrenheit 9/11, the six charted airplane flights that flew the Saudis out of the United States ?didn?t begin until September 14, after airspace reopened.? The movie says this:

It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two-dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family were allowed to leave the country.

Isikoff also disputes the movie?s claim that the Carlyle Group--a private investment firm in which both George H.W. Bush and members of the bin Laden family were involved--profited ?from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor.? Isikoff points out, ?United Defense?s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.?

Again, Isikoff is twisting the truth. The Crusader contract was canceled after the Carlyle Group sold United Defense. Fahrenheit 9/11 says this:

September 11th guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year. Just 6 weeks after 9/11 Carlyle filed to take United Defense public and in December made a one day profit of $237 million dollars.?

To wit, on January 10, 2002, the Los Angeles Times? Mark Fineman, wrote:

On a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army?s fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the September 11 attacks. ? On September 26 [2001], the Army signed a $655-million modified contract with United Defense through April 2003 to complete the Crusader?s development phase. In October, the company listed the Crusader, and the attacks themselves, as selling points for its stock offering.

Of course, Isikoff doesn?t even mention one of the most revealing facts presented in Fahrenheit 9/11. In 2004, when the White House released Bush?s military records, it blacked out the name of the president?s good friend James Bath. (In an original copy obtained by Moore, Bath?s name had not been redacted.) The two met in the Texas Air National Guard, and both were suspended in 1972 for failing to take their medical examination. (In Fahrenheit 9/11 the camera scans the military records as Eric Clapton?s song ?Cocaine? plays in the background.) In 1976, Bath was hired by the bin Laden family to manage their money in Texas. Three years later, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in his first business, Arbusto Energy. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto money came directly from Salem bin Laden, head of the family and a brother of Osama bin Laden. (See ?Questionable Ties: Tracking bin Laden?s money flow leads back to Midland, Texas,? by Wayne Madsen, November 12, 2001.)

This article is permanently archived at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/800/

I think there are mainly 2 categories of Bush supporters :

1) deeply religious country people with little interest in the rest of the world (probably also more toward the less educated lower classes, including the so-called "rednecks", although not just them)

2) rich business people who benefit from tax-cuts and economic policies protecting US industry (esp. energy, health and financial sectors)

I guess that the 2nd category also include some people happy to see the lower-class Americans getting killed in Iraq while they are getting richer. Ironic that these might be the same people as in category 1.

I completely agree with that. I frequent another board (an equestrian site) that is full of highly intelligent, educated people who all get along just fine on most topics, but when it comes to politics and controversial issues, the board becomes completely polarized into conservative vs. liberal and the wars begin. In fact, you should see the thread on this subject from last June and July ... 8 pages long! From what I have gathered observing the arguments of the rightwing conservatives, most of whom refuse to even see this film btw, is that they have all been brainwashed in this country by Fox News, for the most part. Fox News, and Bill O'Reilly in particular, pass off blatantly biased news and opinions that support Bush & Co. and criticize Moore's film as being pure propaganda and full of lies. Moore does admit that his film is propaganda, but it is also a highly factual and accurate film as well, and that is something they simply cannot refute.

I am just amazed at how many people in this country continue to be duped by the Bush administration, but I believe it is mostly due to the propaganda we are fed by corporately-owned news sources here in the U.S. Rupert Murdock, the owner of Fox News and other news, is a huge supporter of Bush. I don't know if you have seen the trailer for the film "Outfoxed," but I created a thread for it here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11261

This should give you some idea of what has been going on over here in terms of biased news that the American public has been force-fed lately and how it has been slanted in favor of Bush and his policies.

Also, have you see the trailer (or the movie itself) for the movie The World According to Bush that is linked in this thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9449

It is supposed to be even better than Fahrenheit 9/11. It hasn't yet been released here in the U.S., however.

 

[MeAndroo]

Rather than quote the whole article, I'll just make a couple of points about problems I have with it...the "Framing Michael Moore" one.

I'm not saying I know everything, and the fact of the matter is that there's an equal probability that any liberally biased propaganda is being met with equallly effective conservative propaganda. That's just a fact of life and politics. What I have a problem with is Joel Bleifuss taking Farenheit 9/11 as though everything in it were irrefuteable fact, and the WHOLE truth.

My problem with Michael Moore has long been that he omits certain information to suit his needs, which is his perrogative. I love the fact that he's taking great strides to share his opinion and dissatisfaction with the current administration. The right to complain is one I hold very dear to my heart. What disturbs me is how this film has not only been deemed as the truth, but that Moore's viewpoint is the truth and there are no other circumstances regarding any of the issues he addresses. I suppose my opinion of Moore was altered slightly after seeing him bumble his way through an interview on the O'Reilly Factor, but he's a filmmaker, not an orator. I wholeheartedly endorse the original idea behind this thread, that of being critical of any "information" placed in front of you. Biased info comes from both sides, and since I don't pigeonhole myself into any political sect, it's my duty as a conscientious American to read up on BOTH sides.

I disagree with the idea that you have to be a rich businessperson to endorse Bush on the basis of taxes. My parents are retired, and traditionally voted Democrat. The likliehood of them endorsing Kerry is minimal, though, because of public perception that he will increase spending, and thus increase taxes. Kerry has said he'll repeal only the upper class tax break (upper class being income somewhere over 288,000), Bush's camp claims he'll raise taxes by as much as $900 billion. Of course, no one knows what he'll DO, just what he SAYS he'll do. This wouldn't be a problem, had Kerry avoided the whole flip-flop debacle. Research into Kerry's voting record also shows a disturbing trend towards voting against tax cuts/for tax hikes in general, regardless of the party of the president. People think they know what they're getting tax-wise with Bush...they have no clue with Kerry.

 

[Satori]

Factual Backup for Fahrenheit 9/11:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=16

In addition, the 911 Commission has confirmed the movie's facts:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24



____________

Of course, it is the other way round. The Saudis have invested in Carlyle!

I agree, and it could be because they fit into this category:

11. Who are your investors?

Carlyle's investors are public and private institutional investors and high net worth individuals. Carlyle does not disclose information about its investors.

My goodness, Carlyle is one serious monster of a corporation, apparently run by mostly government officials, not to mention this man:

William E. Kennard: Former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission; Managing Director in the Telecommunications & Media Group. Mr. Kennard works on telecommunications & media acquisitions and advises Carlyle investment professionals worldwide on telecommunications buyout and venture activities.

So they are run by former government officials, supported by foreign and domestic investors who they refuse to disclose (we can only imagine), and they have the capability to sway public opinion (or prevent public opinion) by determining what we hear through the media. Add to that the fact that Rupert Murdock is secretly supporting Bush and his policies as well, and we have an extremely scary picture.

The more I learn about all of this, the more I feel like I'm in a Robert Ludlum novel--only I'm inside the book and not reading it this time!! Help!! :eek2: :eek2:

Anyhow, if Bush gets re-elected, I will believe that money and influence can buy the presidency easily in the US, and that elections (and probably the media too) are rigged.

I already believe that. I truly do.

By the way, your links were great!

Oh, and I have seen the film (saw it in June), but have not seen the DVD extra. I loved the film! It was interesting to see the reactions of the people in the theater when they learned information they had never seen or heard before. I think every American should see this film before casting their vote in November.

:souka:

 

[MeAndroo]

I'm confused about when they let the Bin Laden family out of the US. Isikoff says they were allowed out on the 14th...9/11 says they were let out "after the 13th." Isn't that the same thing?

I think your first link doesn't work.

The points backed up by the 9/11 Commission are hardly being debated. I have no doubt that the gov't flew the Bin Ladens out, or that they incompetently dealt with the terrorist threat before 9/11, or that Bush may have ignored warnings.

As far as the accuracy of the rest of the movie goes, much of what is "confirmed" by the website are simply articles written by everyday publications. Again, my problem isn't that Moore lies, it's that he leaves out things in a convenient attempt to elicit a knee-jerk reaction from the viewer. Dropping the Bin Laden name is a great example of this. The Bin Laden family is and has been a major international player and does not represent Osama. Of course there's Saudi money in the US. Globalization has made international investing a necessity. Bush Sr. gets CIA reports...it's the right of every President. There's a lot more going on here than Moore would have us believe. If I can also post a biased link,

59 Deceits in Fahrenheit

Dave Kopel also uses everyday publications in his attack on the movie. Which newspapers, magazines, or websites you believe is up to you, but who's to say any one is more trustworthy than the other? Political biases exist in pretty much every media market, so it's important to look at all of them.

 

[Melkor]

I've seen both Farenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. After seeing them, I have no remaining respect for Michael Moore. His methods for presenting possibilities is far too obnoxious for my taste.