Job Discussion Forums

[Communist Smurf]

Here just one part of Michael Moore's movie that I'll address.

Moore talks about how shortly after 9/11, 142 Saudis and 24 bin Ladens flew out of the country two days after the attacks. It's crucial to note that on September 13th, the flight ban was eased and the Saudis weren't the only ones flying after that day. He then shows a picture of Ricky Martin in the airport and says something like, "No one wants to fly, not even Ricky Martin. Who wanted to fly? No one, except the bin Ladens." Here is one minor lie. Check out Moore's own letter to his fans here http://web.archive.org/web/20011008095454/michaelmoore.com/2001_0914.html where he says he wanted to fly and his daughter was afraid of it.

Some information Moore omits:

1. 30 of the Saudis were interviewed by the FBI before they left. The 9/11 Commission said, "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."
2. Their departure was authorized by Richard Clarke (a Bush critic). Clark said letting the Saudis go "was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Also, Moore never bothered to interview Clarke to actually get the facts and considering he's supposed to be making a documentary, I would think he should have.
3. He gives the impression that all the Saudis left immediately with some kind of special treatment. The truth: most of them (all the bin Ladens) left over a week after 9/11 according to the 9/11 commission here http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing10/staff_statement_10.pdf

If you simply use common sense, you'll realize that if the Saudis knew about 9/11 beforehand, they would have left before it actually happened.

I gladly welcome any comments or disputes.

CS

[justcolleen]

CS,

Have you watched the movie?

Colleen

[kev7161]

I said in another thread, but it bears repeating: If only ONE-TENTH of what Michael Moore reported in his documentary (about Bush, Cheney, et. al.) were true, then what are we doing with this wacko still being in the White House?

I don't think everything Moore reports is 100% (and, these days, who exactly reports things in a "fair and balanced" way?), but if 1/10 of all the lies and duplicity and covert operations and business deals is true . . . isn't that 1/10 too much? Can ANYONE on this board honestly say that everything Moore reported was a total lie? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[thelmadatter]

The problem with your argument, kev, is that Michael Moore's credibility is seriously hurt by the problems with his movie. If you are going to make a documentary, it is held to a high standard, much like writing an academic paper. A paper written in one of my classes that is even 10% false would fail and rightfully so.

Moore may or may not have pertinent, damaging information about Bush and the movie is having its intended effect but what is problematic about the movie casts a shadow over the rest and leaves it open to the criticism it has received.

[kev7161]

But that's not really my point. We can criticize and condemn Michael Moore all we want. Good movie, bad movie, well-researched, not so well-researched . . . . we could debate it all day long. But at the end of the day, we (the USA) still have a nutcase for a president who is so obviously not suited for the job and also obviously has his fingers in some rather sticky pies. And, I believe, this is what Moore is aiming for in his movie - - to make us more aware of what's going on. Sure, he plays on your sympathies by spotlighting the grieving mother. Sure, he pokes fun at this person and that (so many in government are easy). But there are some factual things in this movie that could (and should) make even the staunchest Republican shudder.

How did Bush get away with all these things and, more importantly, why are we STILL allowing him to get away with these things? We're not talking about a grade for a term paper. We're talking about the so-called "leader" of one of the most powerful nations on earth. He (the president, not Michael Moore) should be held to higher standards and he is failing miserably.

[waxwing]

On that particular point, I'll have to side with kev against thelma.

If some of what Moore says is wrong, Moore shouldn't have won Cannes.
If some of what Moore says is right, Bush shouldn't have won Florida

[Cleopatra]

"1. 30 of the Saudis were interviewed by the FBI before they left"

What about the other 100 or so Saudis on the flight? BTW, I don't think Moore says that the Saudis were never interviewed - simply that is was done in an extremely cursory manner - in the airport, just prior to departure! As far as I know - you go to the FBI, the FBI does not come to you. Unless you're a high-ranking Saudi, it would appear.

"Their departure was authorized by Richard Clarke (a Bush critic). "

Presumably on condition of the Saudis being questioned in the usual manner - ie, not at their convenience?

"If you simply use common sense, you'll realize that if the Saudis knew about 9/11 beforehand, they would have left before it actually happened."

Saying that relatives of the prime suspect in the biggest crime in American history should have received adequate pre-departure questioning, does not neccessarily imply that all or any of them were guilty of involvement in said crime. However, given that it is standard procedure to grill the relatives of a suspect - particularly when said suspect is unavailable for questioning - it is quite legitimate to ask why that does not appear to have been done in this, of all cases.

Particularly in view of subsequent goings-on in Git Bay.

[jr1965]

I second kev�s point about Moore and the Bush regime, and (for those interested) would also suggest reading The Price of Loyalty (published earlier this year). Paul O�Neill, the former U.S. Treasury Secretary (under Bush II), worked with Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter Ron Suskind to present an insight into the Bush presidency.

O�Neill is life-long Republican who served during the Ford, Reagan, and Bush I administrations, and was a member of Bush II�s innermost circle. He left (no doubt disillusioned and disgusted) after two years serving as a member of our current president�s administration.

[Communist Smurf]

[Communist Smurf]

[justcolleen]

[kev7161]

I'll throw just a couple more cents into this: The "problem" with a documentary such as Fahrenheit 9/11 is that some (many?) people read about it first. People who are anti-Moore, anti-liberalism, or anti-Democrat can't be bothered to actually go out and watch this movie. They will read or listen to the "anti's" (such as Bill O'Reilly) and then base their opinions on others opinions. I read a story that some theater in the US wanted to give all local card-carrying Republicans a free movie night to come and view the film . . . I never did find out the results. Also, a theater chain in Nebraska or Iowa decided not to show this movie at all. They "claimed" (I believe, it's been well over a month since I read the article) they didn't feel it was a profitable venture to show it (I wonder if they have changed their minds now that the movie has made over 100 million dollars?), but in reality I think they (the owners) were a little too conservative and maybe a little scared of what this film would introduce into the minds of local mid-westerners.

In the movie, Moore asserts that maybe some constitutional freedoms are being tampered with due to the threat of terrorism. The movie theather chain I mentioned above brings to mind a certain "freedom of speech" issue.

[kimo]

http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/2001/september/eo2001-261-09-07-01.html

Read the date at the bottom of the quote from this State of Florida web site. Was Governor Jeb Bush planning ahead? He's the brother of the President. Maybe he knew something we didn't.

But, was probably a routine thing the Governor always does.

[Communist Smurf]

[Communist Smurf]