Fahrenheit 911 Trailer

http://www.mooreexposed.com

http://www.moorelies.com

Calling him a fat slob is an insult to all the fat slobs out there!

I'm sorry, but I still find it hilarious that your boy, the "President" of the world's last superpower got his ass whupped by a pretzel. He had a bruise on his face afterward. This was no mere choking.

Yeah, like those Bush worshiping sites aren't biased. Spare me. At this point after all that's been revealed about Bush and his gang of criminals, a vote for Bush isn't a political position, it's a character flaw.

"Yeah, like those Bush hating movies aren't biased. Spare me. At this point after all that's been twisted about Bush and his administration, a vote for Bush isn't a political position, it's the best position."

(pointless, but I couldn't resist)

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

http://www.moorewatch.com/

Chip you're doing the same thing you accused me of doing with the new movie--concluding bias and dismissing criticism of Moore. I do know about his past work, I know the kinds of things he says--but have you taken the time to look at what his critics are saying about him?

Moore DOES NOT deserve do be defended--he makes Kerry look like an angel in comparison. Bush haters should stick to defending Kerry and not Moore--at least Kerry has some positive things he's done. MM is completely absorbed by agenda. If anyone on the left is biased (although I believe quite a few are)--Moore HAS to be one of them. You can't honestly say that there aren't hateful and biased liberals any more than I can say that about conservatives...if he's not an example of a biased liberal with an agenda to push, who the heck is???

Teeny: Well, okay... but for the record, I wouldn't really find it funny if it had happened to Clinton or Kerry. The bruise was from falling...like I said, it could happen to anybody.

Oh--with the Patriot Act--I'm not sure what I think about that one, I've heard some issues of concern reguarding it. It may be a major factor in preventing another attack here, but it should most definitely be re-visited and probably trimmed down in some areas. I'd be pissed off if it expired without even a weakened version of it being considered and we had another attack that may have been prevented.

Closing the borders and stuff like that (besides being completely anti-American -- I think diversity has made us a stronger nation) runs totally counter to liberal positions where (for example) even illegal aliens should get services funded by US taxpayers. Which is it? "You're not allowed to come here legally anymore, but if you do, don't worry--you'll get all the benefits full US citizens get!" "Good luck evading the armed border patrols!"

9/11 is over but this war is not over. We've been under attack by Islamic Fundamentalists (especially our embassies and overseas troops) for years, and we will continue to be under attack from them in years to come. We can't just passively defend ourselves here. We're at a clear disadvantage doing that, because we have to be right EVERY time--we have to stop every attack to be succssful, but they only need to succeed once. That's why we're trying to go on the offensive. There will be another successful terrorist attack here eventually (it's only a matter of time), but the more we can do to stop the proliferation of the worst kinds of these weapons the better. Nobody was afraid that Iraq was going to fire missles at us--we (including uh, all of congress at the time) were afraid Saddam was going to provide terrorists the means to take it to us themselves (through the vast resources Saddam controlled).

Of course Michael Moore is biased. He doesn't make any pretense of not being biased. His films and books aren't presented as facts (even though his books and movies are very well researched). He is presenting a point of view more than he's presenting a traditional documentary and he'd be the first one to admit it. To dismiss his work on the basis of the techniques he employs is to completely miss the point he's trying to make. It's one thing when a filmmaker uses clever editing and sleight of mind to make a point. It's quite another when the president and his administration do it. Do you not understand the difference?

My name is Jack, and I am Canadian.

I can't wait to see this movie. The trailer made me feel rage. That's right, rage.

Thousands of young kids accross Canada are scared out of their wits and can't sleep at night because Bush can't shut up about how unsafe the world is today.

Then he has the gall, the audasity, to tell the leaders of the world (essentially me, because my leader is just someone we elected to be our representative), to be on the look out for terrorists, WHILE HE IS PLAYING GOLF.

Rage folks. Rage.

You can say it was clever editing all you want. The golf club was not special effects, he was not standing in front of blue screen, they did not animate his lips.

When BFC came out, I refused to see it and developed a hatred for Michael Moore because I felt he was just a liberal trying to use a tragedy to get people to "buy-in" to his political views. Even though my view are mostly liberal, I felt columbine was about bullies, and lack of supervision.

When I finally saw it, I was quick to notice his liberal views right away. But as the movie went on, I realized the issue wasn't as simple as I thought. It wasn't just about lack of supervision and bullies, the issue was varied, complex, and requires a lot of thought and discussion. He totally changed the way I think about violence.

I'm looking forward to F911, and I hope it changes the way I think about Bush. And, I hope Bush see's it and stops scaring so many kids with his scary stories. But until I see it, I'm still pretty mad at how Bush acts in front of the cameras.

*points to signature*

What America needs to do is buy one way tickets to The Hague for Bush and everyone in his administration, especially Rumsfeld who clearly committed a war crime by holding a prisoner in secret.

hehe I figured someone would recognize that line. And I couldn't agree more. These people truly frighten me. I'm completely apalled at how little regard they have for international law and the Geneva convention.

Hmm... also in recent news: Another beheading, allegedly, and Putin (who is anti-Iraq war to begin with) is now saying that Russia warned the US in between 9/11 and the 2nd Iraq war that Saddam was planning attacks on the US. We'll see how the news treats these stories tomorrow. CNN (I think) had the Putin story way up in like the 6th spot, so some may have missed that "minor" story.

Chip that's a good job of spinning bias into sounding like it's not a bad thing...but Moore has an agenda and he's selling that agenda to anyone who cares to listen. When has the current administration done anything like MM does, other than the political commercials all politicians do? (Which are quite tame in comparison.) There aren't any anti-Kerry or pro-Bush "documentaries".

The multitude of anti-Moore websites are not popping up because people have personal grudges against him. (Well except maybe Ray Bradbury, who has called Moore a liar and a horrible human being, but Moore did steal his title so I guess he is just pissed about that. ) Again, have you read what Moore's critics are saying?

The research of his that I've seen is extremely sloppy, and is often incorrect, filled with half truths or just flat out wrong.

One of his stupid books:


I could post sources and more websites, but there's so much stuff like this out there that a six year old could find it if they bothered to look. There's enough to fill books.

What point is he trying to make? That fiction and fallacious "fact" reporting on highly controversial subjects can make you rich? Well that is a good point.

The only thing good about him is that at least most people know they're getting feeded a slanted opinion--he doesn't hide that (all the rest of Hollywood and the entertainment industry are the ones who hide their little cheap shot one liners and political messages). But just because he's open about producing partisan propaganda designed to sway people to vote a certain way doesn't make it right.

Whatever though. Moore can blab all he wants about Bush in the new movie, as long as he gets his facts straight. (I'd be amazed if he does.)

Jack, show me some politicians who don't take vacations once in awhile. Why can't he go play golf to relieve the stress of having possibly the largest responsibility in the world? Kerry has no problem going skiing, biking, and kite surfing...he's not gonna work nonstop if he gets elected, either. I don't think Bush's golf trip effects national or international security, and if it did--he would be at work instead. (Unless you believe he's an evil man who cares nothing for other people.)

The world IS unsafe--have we forgotten September 11 already? This was planned before Bush was anywhere near being elected.

Rage, anger...hmm. This seems to be a common theme among Bush opponents. In fact it's almost the only thing unifying Kerry "supporters". It's not that they're voting for Kerry, they're voting against Bush. ...Being angry all the time must be a terrible way to go through life. Moore seems to be an example of this himself--a hate filled person. That's not the way to go about choosing the next leader of the country. Or to make any important decision, for that matter.

I'm getting tired of seeing all this anger and hate. I'm tired of defending Bush like I'm some die-hard Republican, but I'm given no choice when I see the blind one-sided rage. I can't wait until this election is finally over.

We can all agree on one thing, though. I'm frightened about this election too. I'm afraid that people who don't even realize this war against terrorism even exists will win.

There is nothing alleged about the beheading... It happened, I've seen the pictures. And we're leading with it.

After that it's Bush in Reno, Cheney coming to Nevada, then we settle in for the rest of the block with stories that are happening here in Vegas.

Siggy.

You're kidding, right?

Yep Sig...when I first heard a brief report they sounded a little...uncertain? Obviously that isn't the case now.

About what Chip? Is there a Bush equivalent for Kerry to moveon.org saying Bush=Hitler? Or letting fatso get away with calling Bush a deserter...with Wesley Clark standing right next to him? And the Kerry ads went negative on Bush before the Bush ads did... if you're not talking about ads then I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you just think they are flat out lieing to everyone ...uh...

Why are we trying to defend Fat Moore here? I can understand people who just want to be rid of Bush who are willing to do ANYTHING including lie and decieve to get that. (Moore is one of these people, he's more interested in election 2004 than the truth.) But why not just stick to the legitimate things that Bush deserves to be criticized on (they DO exist)--is there just not enough of them?

The one idea that continues to baffle me is that people assume that it is the Iraqi's who are the cause of fundamentalist Islam retaliation. The majority of the Iraqi nation is far from fundamentalist. And the murders of American citizens in Saudi Ariabia were commited by Al Quada no by Iraqi or Hussien sympathizers. It is not our right to throw all Muslim based nations into one pot and call them evil. The slaughters had nothing to do with Iraq...and neither did 9/11.

And on the topic of border issues, I am not a liberal. I am a centrist on social issues and a fiscal conservative, much more akin to libertarian and constitutionalist philosophies. I do think that at this time in the world a more stringent border policy is needed. Yes, America was founded on the idea of open borders and melting pot ideals. But the dynamics of the world as a whole have changed and so should our methods of entry. If someone wants to come to America that is fine...if they wish to be American. But I do not believe that Mohhamed Atta should have been allowed to stay in this country after his brother was incarcerated for bombing the world trade center...after his visa had expired and after he was put on a watch list of terrorist affiliates. He never wanted to become an American citizen...he graduated from NC state and then planned the terrorist attacks and begged Bin Ladin to help him. So, sorry, but yes stricter control of the borders to preserve the sanctity of our constitution is a necessary evil.
Taking away our constitutional rights for the sake of allowing possible terrorists into this country during a time of global unrest is not an option for me.

Ohh and on the topic of lies and deception...well Bush has made a clear example of what to look for...He has been a clever con artist through this entire debaucle with his cover ups and half truths. And now with Rumsfeld denying the commision the right to view documents which are imperative to a ruling. You cannot convince me that this administration is not acting in a dubious and fallacious manner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/movies/20SHEN.html (requires subscription)

some choice bits...

"Mr. Moore's previous films generated a cottage industry of conservative commentators eager to prove sloppiness and exaggeration in his films; a handful of mainstream critics have also found flaws. But if "Fahrenheit 9/11" attracts the audience Mr. Moore and his distributors are predicting, Mr. Moore may face an onslaught of fact-checking unlike anything he — or any other documentary filmmaker — has ever experienced. After all, White House officials and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of them had seen it."

"Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama. Mr. Moore spends several minutes in the film documenting ties between the president and James R. Bath, a financial advisor to a prominent member of the bin Laden family who was an original investor in Mr. Bush's Arbusto energy company and who served with the future president in the Air National Guard in the early 1970's. The Bath friendship, which indirectly links Mr. Bush to the family of the world's most notorious terrorist, has received less attention from national news organization than it has from reporters in Texas, but it has been well documented.

Mr. Moore charges that President Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, C.I.A. briefing that warned of terrorism within the country's borders. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Mr. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post."

"MR. MOORE usually revels in his role as the target of conservative attacks, and his delight in playing the mischievous, little-guy bomb-thrower has brought him fame, wealth and the devotion of fans more interested in rhetorical force than precision. But with "Fahrenheit" he has taken on his biggest and best-defended target yet, and his production staff says that on his orders they have taken no chances in checking and double-checking the film, knowing Bush supporters would pounce on factual mistakes.

Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.

"We have gone through every single word of this film — literally every word — and verified its accuracy," said Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month. Ms. Doroshow is responsible for preparing what she calls a "fact-checking bible," with material ranging from newspaper and magazine articles to copies of the Federal Register, that will allow the film's lawyers and publicists to provide backup for its allegations.

That said, Mr. Moore's fact-checkers does not view the film as straight reportage. "This is an Op-Ed piece, it's not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. "This is not The New York Times, it's not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."