Spinsanity does the heavy lifting on the lies, half-truths, and deceptions in Fahrenheit 9/11, reaching this conclusion:
During a recent interview on “Late Night with David Letterman,” the host identified the problems with the circumstantial argument of the film in a series of probing questions to Moore:
When you look at the film in total, are there things there – if I were smarter, could I refute some of these points? Shall I believe you that everything means exactly what it looks like? I mean, the presentation is overwhelming, but could a smarter man than me come in and say, “Yes, this happened, but it means nothing,” “Yes, that happened but it means nothing”? But put together in a puzzle it creates one inarguable, compelling circumstance.
Moore’s response to Letterman (after a joking aside) sums up the problem with his work. Despite proclamations that the film is satirical and represents his opinion, Moore still makes strong claims about its veracity:
You can’t refute what’s said in the film. It’s all there, the facts are all there, the footage is all there.
Sadly, as with most of Moore’s work, this is simply not true.
It’s a pretty devastating litany, and those who find themselves arguing the film’s merits with Moore-bots would do well to read it.
Deceptions ? Definitely.
Lies ? I don’t see any.
The attackers/reviewers of the film always go after this Saudi/flights part, but I don’t think it’s the best part.
The best part of the movie comes later, when interviewing the soldiers there, coming back, and the parents who don’t get their sons back.
Why is it that passengers were allowed up to 4 books of matches and 2 fluid lighters on board a plane, even after the shoe-bomber was caught, yet mothers were made to drink their own breast milk ? There are a lot of other issues that contribute to Bush stinking, and the Saudi flights aren’t the major part of them. I think it’s clear to people who read and see the movie that Moore pulled punches he could have thrown.
What a retarted question you raise, Mike: Why is it that passengers were allowed up to 4 books of matches and 2 fluid lighters on board a plane, even after the shoe-bomber was caught, yet mothers were made to drink their own breast milk ?
But what’s the reason, Enron? Halliburton? Carlyle? Saudi? The Christian Right? No, it must be the J-E-W-S, right?
Why is that question retarded ? Why do you insist on being obtuse ? The issue is brought up in the movie, and I think it’s a valid issue. Have you *seen* the movie ? Or are you too busy quoting reviews ?
I’m suggesting that there are other issues in the movie that aren’t in the reviews. Why is that difficult to grasp ?
Do you have an answer to my “retarded” question, or do you just have wiseass answers ?
Here’s some help for you:
1. Investigators said that Reid might have succeeded in blowing up American Airlines Flight 63 if he had used a cigarette lighter instead of matches.
2. Passengers are allowed 4 books of matches and 2 fluid lighters.
the suggestion: don’t let people board planes with lighters and matches on their person.
Please let me know if my point is still unclear, and I’ll try to help again.
Your question is retarded because the answer is so obvious — some bureaucrat in TSA made a decision and published lists of banned and permitted items. Like all government work, these lists are fairly arbitrary. It’s not news, it’s not important, and no rational person is exercised about it.
Ok, well you sure convinced me. I won’t bother anyone with the piddly details.
I hate to be the one that breaks the news to you Mike, but President Bush doesn’t personally make the lists of banned and permitted items, and the odds that some conspiracy is involved in their composition are extremely long. But leave it to Michael Moore to see the fingerprints of a secret cabal at work here.
Don’t hate that, Richard. No one said that Bush is responsible for the banned list, not even Moore.
You assume that because it’s in F9/11, that Moore blames Bush for it all. See the movie before you comment about it.