OT - "Burn, Motherf**ker, Burn!"

Just saw Michael Moore’s latest creation. Love him or hate him, he does look like a big fat slob. But he is one gutsy fat slob. And you gotta give the guy credit for getting his big rear off the couch and putting it on the line in a pretty big way. He sure does know how to make a stunning film. 95% (not 100%) of what he shows in Fahrenheit is very compelling, no matter what your political stripe.

Perhaps especially interesting for military folks who have never been in real combat or killed people is the extensive footage of what is right now happening in Iraq (from the US combat soldier’s perspective)–a good deal of footage that you will NEVER see on american television. That I guarantee.

Fahrenheit 9/11: A Conservative Critique http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/grigg-w1.html

I just returned from viewing Fahrenheit 9/11 here in Appleton, WI. I went to the 1:30 PM showing, which was – astonishingly – sold out. The crowd was overwhelmingly white and middle-class (this IS Wisconsin, remember), ranging in age from early teens to retirees. The people were polite, friendly, well-mannered (something we shouldn’t take for granted on the part of contemporary theater crowds). There was tumultuous applause at the end, punctuated by a moment of reflective silence as we read the dedication card invoking those murdered by terrorists on 9/11, and those murdered through state terrorism in the aftermath.

The film itself very much reflects its creator: It’s shaggy, flabby, occasionally witty, and frequently infuriating. It will have a HUGE impact because Moore – his facile leftist economics notwithstanding – has nailed his case against the Bush regime flush to the plank. It will be all but impossible for anybody who sits still and watches this film to view Bush the Lesser as anything other than a petty, spiteful, dim-witted, bloody-handed little fool – and the figurehead of a murderous power elite. This explains why the Bu’ushists are threatening to go Abu Ghraib on Moore: They’re busted.

The most powerful moments in the film are those that humanize U.S. troops, several of whom are shown on-screen criticizing the regime. A major arc of the film is devoted to a Flint, Michigan housewife from a military family whose son, just prior to being killed in Iraq, wrote a letter condemning “George ‘I wanna be like my Daddy’ Bush” for staging this useless, unjust war. Moore himself, who narrates the film (and makes himself too much a part of the story, incidentally) observes that the largest immorality of this entire enterprise is the actions of a dishonest president lying our country into war and forcing decent young men (and women) to do immoral things.

It should be pointed out as well that the film – despite being lambasted as an exercise in unalloyed Bush-bashing – doesn’t spare Democrats who acquiesced in Bush the Lesser’s power grabs and his criminal war against Iraq. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle comes off particularly poorly, which in his case merely requires a recording device of some kind.

An interesting encounter immediately after seeing the film underscores its fundamentally non-partisan nature. Some poor schlep had positioned himself outside the theater with a clipboard soliciting signatures on a nominating position for a would-be Democrat congressional candidate. A couple of people seized the petition and started to sign. Impertinent sort that I am, I asked, “What’s this fellow’s position on the war?”

The scribbling stopped, and several sets of eyes focused intently on the hapless volunteer. “Well, um, ah, he thinks we should do something,” he began, stammeringly. “Ah, he just thinks we should be more careful.” On hearing this, a lady looked at her husband, who had signed the petition, and snapped, “Scratch off your name.” I told the volunteer that I’m what most people would regard as an “ultra-conservative – not just a `conservative’ – but if your guy came out against the war I’d vote for him, and knock on doors.” “Well, I can’t really address all the details of his positions,” the increasingly flustered guy responded. “Just let him know what I said,” I suggested, telling him that there are a lot of people who have the same point of view.

I chatted with several other people as they left the theater, all of them roughly my age (early 40s) and of similar economic and cultural background. Each of them indicated that he or she would urge friends to see the film – which means that it will have “legs” even if the GOP and FEC were to choke off advertising somehow.

There were no screaming Bolsheviks (one viewer had an anti-animal rights T-shirt) or marijuana-scented bohemians in the crowd. This wasn’t the sort of crowd you’d see at a Phish concert, or storming McDonald’s at an anti-WTO rally. There were Wal-Mart customers, people who probably listen to country music (even Toby Keith), and even vote Republican. And they were PISSED – quietly, but palpably. A would-be political prisoner Martha Stewart would say, that’s a good thing. And well overdue.

author is a William Norman Grigg. go to the URL above if you want to contact him.

“It will be all but impossible for anybody who sits still and watches this film to view Bush the Lesser as anything other than…”

    • Not at all. If you believe Moore, then you have to think Bush is on drugs, twisted and should be dipped in shit and hung for stinking. OTOH, if you start finding out how many lies there are in the movie, you’d be packaging your feces so they have enough to dip Moore.

My only question would be: Who has the most credibility, Moore or Bush? Your answer to that question will say which way you’re going to vote in November, and Moore’s obviously contrived bit of fiction will reinforce the Bush bashers and enrage the Bush supporters.

Just don’t go thinking that the movie is anything other than JF Kerry’s advertising.

A repost of mine from another thread.

"Newsday reported some of Moore’s misstatements as follows: “At the start of ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, ‘under every scenario Gore won the election.’

“What Moore doesn’t show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election…"

He is using old information to try and show that Gore would have been elected had the recount happened. That is just one of the first scenes. Why do I need to go any further and try to prove that Moore is a propagandist who has no regard for the truth. Sure his movie may be factually correct. It is factually correct that this CNN analyst said that, but the FACT that someone else spouted off at the mouth does not make what they were spouting FACT.

I’m sure what he says is very compelling. That’s the way he created and twisted things to be and that is the whole point.

Farenheit 9/11 is an op-ed piece, and Moore has made no attempt to say otherwise. Its his personal opinion on the war and why we are there fighting it.

I have yet to see anyone refute any of the FACTS contained in the film, only Moore’s interpretation of those facts. You can’t call a guy a liar for giving his opinion!

Then we have Faux…I mean Fox News which purports to be a 'fair and balanced" reporter of facts and news, whereas in reality its little more than the Neocon chickenhawk propaganda channel disguised as a news channel.

People shouldn’t be worried about the opinions of one man. They should be worried about who is getting broadcasting lisences in this country and how they are being abused.

Que liberal media rant…

A repost of mine from another thread.

"Newsday reported some of Moore’s misstatements as follows: “At the start of ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, ‘under every scenario Gore won the election.’

“What Moore doesn’t show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election…"

He is using old information to try and show that Gore would have been elected had the recount happened. That is just one of the first scenes. Why do I need to go any further and try to prove that Moore is a propagandist who has no regard for the truth. Sure his movie may be factually correct. It is factually correct that this CNN analyst said that, but the FACT that someone else spouted off at the mouth does not make what they were spouting FACT.

I’m sure what he says is very compelling. That’s the way he created and twisted things to be and that is the whole point.

Actually, you are wrong, but so is Moore. The recount consortium determined that Bush would have won under the recount strategies that Gore was pursuing (ironically), but had all the votes been counted under the “determine the intent of the voter” standard under Florida law, Gore would have won. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058603

Now, even if the movie comment is disputed or inaccurate, it is a minor background point of the movie. What FACTS about Bush, as depicted in the movie, do you dispute? For example, do you dispute the 7 minutes he sat on his ass, after knowing a second plane hit the WTC? Why didn’t he excuse himself from the photo op with the schoolkids, and find out what was going on?

“Why didn’t he excuse himself from the photo op with the schoolkids, and find out what was going on?”

Cholla, although I think you often make some good points, this particular one, which you seem to be intent on driving home, is just plain monday-morning-quarterbacking at its worst. 7 minutes you want to know about. 7 minutes? And what would you suppose he would have done with those 7 minutes? Launch planes to shoot down the airliners? He’s at the top of the military food chain. The fact is that he would barely be able to get our missiles launched in 7 minutes in the event of a nuclear attack. . .that that is a very strong MAYBE. Now put all the human factors involved in getting planes launched. . .

So just what would he do? Again, he’s at the top of the information food chain. He understands that it takes a certain amount of time for info to trickle up. Sure, he could have gotten on a phone and ranted and raved for info. He would have been told that “We’re working on it, Mr. President. We don’t know.” And anyone else in that position would have done the same thing, if they had even one iota of sense of leadership. The worst thing to do is panic and start screaming for information RIGHT NOW!

I’m not just defending Bush here. I’m saying anyone would have done the same. Try sitting at the top of 100 levels of staff sometime. See how fast you can get info from the bottom. Its a hell of a lot longer than 7 minutes, I can tell you that. At that moment, he could only speculate as much as any of the rest of us.

Jumping into action 1/2 cocked with zero information and heavy assumptions would have been worse.

Text from the 9/11 commission on the reaction of the President/VP/etc.

“The President and the Vice President
The President was seated in a classroom of second graders when, at approximately 9:05,
Andrew Card whispered to him: “A second plane hit the second tower. America is under
attack.” The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see
an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The national press corps was standing behind
the children in the classroom; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President
felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was
happening.
The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the
children continued reading.”

“According to notes of the call, at about 9:45 the President told the Vice
President: “Sounds like we have a minor war going on here, I heard about the Pentagon.
We’re at war….somebody’s going to pay.”
About this time Card, the lead Secret Service agent, the President’s military aide, and the
pilot were conferring on a possible destination for Air Force One. The Secret Service
agent felt strongly that the situation in Washington was too unstable to return. Card
agreed. The President, however, needed convincing. All witnesses agreed that the
President strongly wanted to return to Washington and only grudgingly agreed to go
elsewhere. The issue was still undecided when the President conferred with the Vice
President at about the time Air Force One was taking off. The Vice President recalled
urging the President not to come back to Washington.”
The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the
children continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15,
where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He then spoke to Vice
President Cheney, Dr. Rice, Governor Pataki, and FBI Director Mueller. He decided to
make a brief statement from the school before leaving for the airport. The Secret Service
told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it
imperative for him to run out the door."

Here’s the site http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_17.pdf

That’s what the president was doing. Right or wrong this shows he at least had a reason for what he did. I’m not saying what he did was right either. With all the other press in the room why are we just hearing about this through Moore’s supposed stellar detective skills?

As for other facts that Moore is wrong I don’t have any as I haven’t watched the movie, but why do I need to go any further than to prove that he already had one error when he maintains that everything in the movie is correct? Didn’t take too long to prove that one wrong, unless you twist his statement to mean that everything in the movie happened is a fact, but not the way that he portrays it.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. Even if he didn’t know what to do, or if it wouldn’t have made a difference, I would expect the most powerful human on the planet to express some concern and curiousity, to say the least, upon learning that his country was under attack. He was reading to children - a nice gesture and photo op, but not something essential when he should be taking the reigns of the nation. He could have gently and quickly excused himself from the room, telling the children that something had come up and that perhaps he would visit with them another time. Obviously, we’ll never know, but I’d bet that most world leaders would have taken a course of action similar to what I described. Certainly, that episode does not demonstrate the strong leadership that Bush claims, by any stretch of the imagination.

Text from the 9/11 commission on the reaction of the President/VP/etc.

Here’s the site http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_17.pdf

That’s what the president was doing. Right or wrong this shows he at least had a reason for what he did. I’m not saying what he did was right either. With all the other press in the room why are we just hearing about this through Moore’s supposed stellar detective skills?

As for other facts that Moore is wrong I don’t have any as I haven’t watched the movie, but why do I need to go any further than to prove that he already had one error when he maintains that everything in the movie is correct? Didn’t take too long to prove that one wrong, unless you twist his statement to mean that everything in the movie happened is a fact, but not the way that he portrays it.

I only raised his conduct in that 7 minutes to ask if that was one of the “lies” that Moore’s critics complain of. Obviously, it wasn’t a lie. And, IMHO, regardless of Bush’s rationalizations, it doesn’t make him look good.

AS for your last paragraph, I’m confused: you haven’t shown ANY factual errors in the movie. Bush sat with the kids for 7 minutes. Or what am I missing here? What facts from the movie have been proven untrue?

The error I pointed out were in an earlier post. The ones about the recount of the Florida vote.

I never said that the 7 minutes was an error, just provided more background information to those who haven’t seen it.

But already showing one error, that you agreed with, why do I need to keep going?

“Moore or no Moore, Bush has no credibility.”

    • Your opinion, and one I can’t even begin to share. If you want to see no credibility, look at John Kerry. He can’t even stay on one side of an issue for an entire press conference. You may not like Bush and you apparently don’t even know why, but credibility he’s got in spades. You know where the man stands, because he tells you and then he stays there.

“He didn’t a few years ago, a few months ago, yesterday…and he won’t next week.”

    • That’s only true if you’re listening to the Dem talking points about how he supposedly lied us into war, etc. Unfortunately, those talking points are glaringly false.

“What amazes me is how much Moore is seemingly contributing to this election. Sweet Mother of Mercy, are we all so fixated on the Big Screen that we allow our opinions to be shaped by it?!?”

    • Not only is that amazing, but who on this earth is so empty headed as to listen to ANYTHING Michael Moore has to say. Now THERE is a man with less than no credibility, no soul, no honor, no decency, and no compunction whatever about telling the most blatant of lies, even to the point of quoting interviews that never happened.

“I know what you’re trying to say, Cousin Elwood, but I desperately hope that the election comes down to how people view Bush vs. Kerry rather than Bush vs. Moore.”

    • I don’t really care, because the people will get the government they deserve. If they are so easily led as to think Michael Moore has done anything but piss on their shoes and tell them it’s raining, then the country will make the only mistake worse than reelecting Bush, by electing Kerry.

“I guess we’re all influenced by the media in one form or another”

    • Not all of us. Some of us do enough digging to find out if we’re being bullshat…

“but at some point too much is too much. Has that point now arrived?”

    • It arrived some years ago. It’s definitive proof was when Clinton said that it depended what the meaning of “is” is, and the nation didn’t demand his resignation for treating us like abject fools.

Once again, we get the government we deserve, not individually, but as a society. As I’ve said before, it comes from having an ignorant electorate, and allowing those with no stake to have such a large say.

It would have only taken about five seconds for me to realize that I had to get out of there NOW and to a command/control center, whether it be Air Force One, or whatever. Seven minutes is an eternity when you’re under (a terrorist) attack. There’s no question he froze at the wheel.

Again, that’s monday-morning quarterbacking to the nth degree. Its easy to critique when you know the outcome, and especially when you don’t have all the facts. Or when you choose to ignore some of the facts. There is nothing he or anyone could have made happen differently to affect the events of that day by bolting immediately that he could make happen from right where he was. He has c2 capabilities 24/7, whether he’s in the Oval Office, AF1 or sitting in a school room in Fla. But its easy to overlook that when your aim is to make him look bad. Choose your facts first…you can distort them later.

Well at least you killed me on my suggestion that “you don’t even know why” - - ROTFLMMFAO!!

Here’s the problem: I say you guys don’t even know why you hate Bush, and you step up to prove my point. “It’s because we can’t believe him!”

Well that would be YOUR inability to believe, not HIS inability to be truthful. You believed Clinton, I assume? Case closed!!

    "I'm sure what he says is very compelling. That's the way he created and twisted things to be and that is the whole point. 

No, I did not find HIM (Moore) that compelling. But what was VERY compelling was seeing and hearing what our dedicated soldiers were experiencing at the very pointy end of our sharp stick in Iraq. Moore wasn’t even there interviewing them. But what they said and what they showed carried the whole film. See it and you will know EXACTLY what I mean.

No, I did not find HIM (Moore) that compelling. But what was VERY compelling was seeing and hearing what our dedicated soldiers were experiencing at the very pointy end of our sharp stick in Iraq. Moore wasn’t even there interviewing them. But what they said and what they showed carried the whole film. See it and you will know EXACTLY what I mean.
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/images/clear_shim.gif

“No, I did not find our dedicated soldiers that compelling. But Moore said they carried the whole film. See it and you will find Moore compelling.”

Those are all your words, but MY creative editing. I can make you say anything I want, and I’m not even a professional shit-disturber like Moore. Catch my drift?

What would you have done at the command and control center? Everyone was already doing what they could. The worst comanders I ever had where the ones who would have to do something.

Leadership is knowing when to get out of the way. Of course this has nothing to do with the 7 seconds. You hate Bush, like I do, but you are blinded by it and can’t make common sense judgement.
Was it a typo when you said “7 seconds”? It was actually 7 MINUTES that he sat and did nothing, not even attempting to find out what was going on. If you or a few others don’t see that that was Bush’s “leadership” skills under exhibition for all to see, then I give up.

The error I pointed out were in an earlier post. The ones about the recount of the Florida vote.

I never said that the 7 minutes was an error, just provided more background information to those who haven’t seen it.

But already showing one error, that you agreed with, why do I need to keep going?

I agreed that there were differing characterizations of the recount. Moore was wrong, but so were you. Since you choose to critique a movie you haven’t seen, let me explain it to you - the significance of that quote (about Gore winning the recount) was to show bias of the media - in not reporting that, and in not reporting that Bush’s limo was pelted by eggs before the inauguration, causing him to be the only President to have to forgo the walk to the inauguration. The POINT made was pro-Bush media bias.

I guess you don’t contest any of the main points of the movie, since you can’t identify them.

Your are a creative writer. An award will be mailed promptly.

Also, if you see the movie, you will get the chance to see some really, really funny facial expressions of Bush (and of some of the rest of his funny folks).