FAHRENHEIT 9/11


Saw this night before last.  Laughed my head off & almost cried.  Thought it was very one sided … but i guess that is what it was designed as.  I hope every American sees this movie to counter act the marketing and gloss.  Although Moore is obviously one sided i think it is important that everyone see just how the other side of the story goes.  Bush does very well at making himself the laughing stock of the rest of the world.  I think it is only now, after the recent reports that have come out, that even top officials in the US government now also acknowledge that the US is held in a far worse light, and is in even a more dangerous position, than it ever has been before.  I hope the people of the US take note and realise that changes are required.  I am not an American … so unfortunately cant vote … but i urge everyone to vote who is.


I loved it the movie … Well done Mike.

Comments (28)

  1. Chris says:

    I share your sentiments about the movie. I am not an American either but felt proud to be a Canadian after watching the movie. One thing people should realize is that in democracy one should always keep the government in check and not let it run amuck. The current administration has played on people’s insecurities and credulities to acheive their own ulterior motives and it is sad to see the American people turn a blind eye to it. If only all the money that had been dumped into Iraq been put to use in places like Flint, Michigan, I bet there will lot more happy families in America.

  2. Tom says:

    59 deceits in Farenheit 9/11. The list is growing regularly.

    http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

    The film is a farce. I am thankful most Americans see that and a slim majority still see we are embarking on World War 3, and the US is the only country who can stop it. And we will, regardless of the efforts of Moore and his lies.

  3. Anon says:

    I saw the movie too. I’m not an American either.

    I think the movie has a weak plot which gets weaker and weaker. The story takes a 90 degree half-turn and moves from Bush to US Army and loses its tempo. The conclusion made has nothing to do with the preceding story.

    Moore has just made an unethical but successful attempt to popularize himself. It is a bad execution and Moore fails to make any proper conclusion. He does not make clear who was the culprit and what was the movie discussing.

  4. A Realist says:

    If the US is held in such low light, why do people want to migrate here?

    There are countries can’t even feed their people, but can happily criticize America, shame on them!

    I would think Americans want a president who would protect their country rather than winning a popularity contest? Be it Bush or Kerry.

  5. Chad Myers says:

    Yeah, there’s so much bunk and mistruth, distortion, lies, and exaggeration in that movie, I don’t know how anyone can feel good about themselves after coming out of it.

    For example, the whole bit about the Jan 21 2001 inauguration (sp?) motorcade. That whole bit was just one big lie. The riots happened either the day before or way earlier that morning. There were only five people who threw eggs and one of them was beat up by girl scouts who held him down until police came!

    Bush had to stay in the car because of the rain, not because of bad sentiment like Moore lied about. The people who lined the streets were overwhelmingly in support of him (of the thousands, only 5 threw eggs).

    I hope this movie doesn’t persuade anyone of anything because it’s all just bad video splicing and laser-like focus on everything negative.

    HINT: Every president bumbles speech, makes stupid remarks, is snotty to the press etc. Clinton was probably one of the worst, it’s just that we never saw it because the media loves him and always gives him preferential treatment and cuts out anything bad he might do.

  6. Jerry Pisk says:

    Chris, if you’re proud to be Canadian after watching F911 then you should rent Bowling for Columbine. He’s definitelly pro-Canadian in that movie 🙂

  7. Chad Myers says:

    And if you want the truth, Chris, you can check out:

    http://www.bowlingfortruth.com

    Which is another accounting of all of Moore’s lies and deceits (which are in prime form in his Bowling for Columbine movie)

  8. Adam Young says:

    I haven’t seen the film, but on the whole the press that Bush gets here in Europe is on the whole very, very bad. I’m quite surprised that it takes a film like this to highlight the shortcomings of the President to the American people – perhaps the US media is too partisan to present a balanced perspective, which is a pity.

    I’m not American either – and far be it for me to condemn a man who was "democratically" elected by the American people – but we in the Old World will all breathe a sigh of relief when Bush finally vacates the White House. We are prayng for a new President who has more of a grasp of foreign affairs and is motivated by a desire to use the US’s resources for something more tangible than unfinished family business and making himself and his pals richer.

    As for this "world war 3" business, where exactly did that assertion come from? Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction, and neither were there links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Here in Britain the Butler Report into the Iraq affair has shown that the "intelligence" that Blair presented to us in order to convince us that the Iraq war was justified was "unsafe" & downright misleading(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3890961.stm).

    Moore’s film may be propaganda; but Moore’s propaganda hasn’t taken any major world powers into an invasion of a sovereign nation yet.

    Yes, we in Britain were America’s strongest ally in Europe for Iraq – and yet a majority of people over here were against it. Was that reported in America? Is the fact that the intelligence is now discredited, so the reasons for going to war in the first place have been discredited, been reported over there? Blair is currently under a lot of pressure to resign.

    Most of us have trouble trying to understand why Blair risked everything to support Bush (who has long had a reputation here for being incompetent, if not actually stupid), but perhaps he honestly thought that if we were behind the States, he could curb some of Bush’s excesses, and turn the invasion into something positive?

  9. It amazes me that people will take the word of a proven liar. Michael Moore is a liar, plain and simple. F911 is full of lies and the documentation of those lies is far more revealing than the movie itself.

    It amazes me the people in Europe and Canada who have no clue about the American political environment, saying they will breath a sigh of relief when Bush loses. This kind of haughtiness and ignorance is almost humorous.

    As an American who does get to vote, whose opinion does matter I ask myself a few questions. Who will better prosecute the war on terrorism? Who will better secure the American homeland? Who shares my opinions that government is not the answer to the problems of man, that taxes restrict growth and prosperity, that socialized medicine is not good medicine, that all people deserve liberty, that political freedom and economic freedom are the key to successful and prosperous societies which contribute to the advancement of mankind?

    When I get done answering those questions, I go vote.

  10. Another realist says:

    About Bush…. I lived in Texas when he was elected governor there over a popular democrat incumbent, Ann Richards. While he was there the press never made him look like he does now, he was a straight up guy, that’s it.

    My point is it IS all the press, that’s it. For anyone that thinks Bush is an idiot be glad you aren’t getting shown on tv every day by people trying to make you look bad. I have distinct memories of being a teenager, and being convinced during the ’84 election (the first one I paid attention to) that everyone hated Reagan. Caus that’s how the press spun it. And what do you know, he won 49 states. I learned something valuable that day: don’t believe anything in the press, find the facts and make your own conclusions. If Michael Moore is your fact checker, well, don’t let him be 🙂

  11. Matt says:

    "The film is a farce. I am thankful most Americans see that and a slim majority still see we are embarking on World War 3, and the US is the only country who can stop it. And we will, regardless of the efforts of Moore and his lies."

    Many in the rest of the world worry America’s provoking WWIII by giving extremists propaganda for their recruiting campaigns and playing into their hands politically. If America keeps behaving like a bully (and invading other countries because you THINK they MIGHT have it in for you is bullying) extremists will find it pretty easy to get more power.

    That only leads to more terrorism and possibly (in the decade or so time range) WWIII.

  12. Matt says:

    "It amazes me the people in Europe and Canada who have no clue about the American political environment, saying they will breath a sigh of relief when Bush loses."

    It amazes me the people in America, spoon fed a diet of one sided, insular, radical Republican diatribe can call Europeans and Canadians ignorant.

    People in those countries have been following Bush for years – it’s been hard not to with 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, the UN arguments, the Kyoto protocol etc. And most of them have made a very informed decision that they’d very much like to see the back of him. Even many sympathetic politically have decided he’s a dangerous dope.

  13. Jerry Pisk says:

    Keith, how long exactly have you lived in Europe and Canada? On one handside you’re saying that they have no clue about US politics, on the other hand you’re obviously more than enough qualified to make statements about what they know.

    As for using Moore as a fact source – you can’t, but everything in his movies is pretty easy to verify. For example, the fact that he ran every single company he ran into the ground was also said on the History channel, in a show about Texas. Now go ahead, call everybody who agrees w/ Moore a liar. All my republican friends do…

  14. Adam Young says:

    As an "ignorant European", all I’m going to say, without repeating myself – the US is the most powerful, influential country in the world. That’s a fact, and I’m not going to undermine that.

    I’m now going to repeat what I said earlier – I’ve not seen the film, and I’m not really a fan of Moore. He’s a propagandist, true. But so’s Bush. Neither of their world views appeal to me.

    And this is where we get to the crux of the problem, and the one that people in the US have a hard time with (would I call it ignorance – I wouldn’t be so arrogant!) – US foreign policy, because of America’s position, power and authority, affects us all – this really isn’t just about America. And when the politics of the President is motivated by "free market economics", or a desire to see "democracy" forcefully imposed into countries that are not prepared or willing to accept it – this affects us all. It is worth noting that in a country like Iraq (just like many others in the middle east), a democratically elected government would be a radical islamic government – that’s because the majority of the populations of these countries are devout muslims. Is America prepared to take responsibility for imposing democracy on these countries (I mean, without imposing puppet rulers)?

    There has been a real increase in terrorist acts in the world since 9/11, and US foreign policy has had a part to play in this. Is the world a safer place since Bush’s "War on Terror"? the sad fact is, no it isn’t – because he hasn’t actually been trying to fight terrorism. Iraq, it is now shown, had no links with Bin Laden, no WMDs – so what was Bush playing at? Interestingly, one of his aides revealed a little while ago that Bush was talking about invading Iraq right from the start of his presidency, i.e. 9 months before 9/11.

    So let’s not be naive and pretend that this is just an issue that Americans can comment on; foreign policy is a complex issue, and a President who gleefully uses his country to support the business interests of himself and his friends is not living up to the high standards we all have for a President of the United States – and remember please that this is why we europeans criticise America most of all – the US was founded by Europeans (amongst other nations), and the whole spirit of America was founded on sound, liberal and humanitarian political philosophies that were born from a desire to free people from years of repression under European monarchical and dictatorial systems of government. We have high standards for you guys – so please – live up to this legacy, make us proud of the US once again.

  15. Wallym says:

    Which of the lies did everyone like the best?

    Wally

  16. Wallym says:

    I understand what many of you are trying to say. However, the problem is that the terrorist movement and many radical islamic governments are the result of overly nationalistic pushes by the Arabs themselves. Nationalism is a good thing when one is trying to build a country. Taking pride in your country and defending it is a good thing. I don’t care if it is the US, England, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or whatever country. The problem is that the push towards nationalism has been taken over by radical forces in many of these countries. Do I believe that a majority of Saudi, Iranian, Iraqi, or Egyptian people (not governments, but people) would have actively supported the terrorist attacks in the US on 9/11? Absolutely not. The nationalistic push has been taken over by radical elements. The result is that what started as a good thing, has become evil. That’s the way I see it from over here.

    Wally

  17. Jeff says:

    But now we know the truth (thanks to the US Senate and British Butler reports) – Bush didn’t lie, these men: Joseph Wilson, Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc…

    I won’t hold my breath to see apologies and retractions by them or by Moore, the NYT, WaPo, BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR, etc….

    Prediction: Jon Kerry will get no more than 32% of the popular vote in November’s election and, once it is completed, everyone who thought JFK <cough> would be the next President will sit back and wonder "what were we thinking?"

    Cheers – Jeff

  18. T Rodgers says:

    Contrary to the posts above linking to very partisan (biased sites), everything in this movie is backed up and factual if not at least supported by solid evidence.

    My only complaint about it was that it didn’t offer much new, besides some funny/scary/shocking video footage that I’d never seen before. Most of the facts were already out there, although no one has put them together in a cohesive fashion like M. Moore does with this film.

    I do recommend this movie to everyone. It definitely shows a one sided picture – but it’s still an important picture to understand everything that’s out there.

    As a moderate I will vote for Kerry, not because of this film, but largely because of the same anger that made it.

  19. T Rodgers: please take a minute to google this topic before you again take the word of Michael Moore on ‘facts’

    Adam: I appreciate you well thought out and careful analysis of the intracacies of american foreign policy. There is however a point you got wrong. Since 9/11 terrorist acts are down some 42% according to the US Department of State.

    http://bushbloggers.com/keith/archive/2004/07/27/208.aspx

  20. "Clinton was probably one of the worst, it’s just that we never saw it because the media loves him and always gives him preferential treatment and cuts out anything bad he might do."

    This is definitely the most unbiased, factual statement on this page. 😉 I came close to laughing out loud.

    I’ll assume Chad was in a coma through all of "Monica-gate". I wouldn’t be surprised if some analysis showed that to be the most reported news story of the century (even more than Elian Gonzalez!)

  21. James says:

    If all of you agree that this film is one sided, than why is it called a documentary. A documentary is supposed to be a fact stating film. Show all the facts. It is not suppose to leave facts out or misreport the ones it uses. I don’t see how any one can call this left leaning, anti Bush political film a documentary. Even Michael Moore said he wants Bush out of office. I don’t lead my life on how I think other see me. Why should President Bush run the country at war any other way? This countries security is more important then it’s reputation in the world.

  22. Charles says:

    well a documentary doesn’t have to be factual, it is, in a sense the opinion of fact based upon the person presenting the documentary. In this case, it is a LEFT wing LIBERAL liar named mike moore who hates the country in which he profits. He used the misgotten idea that a documentary was supposed to be based on facts, only to present his mishmash of edited footage to say exactly what he believes, lies.

  23. Chris says:

    i beleive that micheal moore had every right to make this movie, however, he still should have made it factual. i have seen the real footage of the movie (ex. he asked a senator if he had any family members in the war and the senator said he had two nephews yet michael moore cut that out and spliced the film with another question that was asked to the senator and the senators reply was "no") so michael moore bent things to suit himself. he hates george bush and thats all there is to it. i for one, think its time the american people hear what the candidates really beleive and unfortunately, were never going to get that.

  24. Mike says:

    The movie is Propaganda. Drink moore koolaid chris.

  25. Nivek says:

    Michael Moore hired the main fact-checker for the New Yorker to review every statement and videotape in the picture along with lawers and groups along that type. I looked up his facts and they are facts, they may be facts that favor him but they are real facts, and he gives many sorces for every qoute. Also, saying he lies just proves that you did not look up anything and having no proof on your side gives the movie man the point. Not you, Bush lovers. I would like to see any of your guys sorce of your so called "facts"

    I also found it was not a clear win for bush because in the 2000 election, George W. Bush received about 544,000 fewer votes then Al Gore. Because it is Electoral College not the, result of Florida. According to certified Florida electoral results, Al Gore lost the presidency in Florida by only 537 votes out of a total Florida vote count of 5,962,657, a victory margin for George W. Bush of 0.009 percent of the 5.9 million votes counted.

    US data from the 2000 election.

    Also, you are trying to be on the side of Bush, thats it I can tell by your posts and what you know.