Fahrenheit 9/11 discussion (spoilers)

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-06-25 03:14am

I just got back from a midnight show of Fahrenheit 9/11 and was very impressed. I know this movie is going to be a hot topic on this forum, so let me start it off.

The movie can be divided into two distinct parts: pre-Iraq and post-Iraq. In the first part of the movie, pre-Iraq, the movie is fairly weak. It is merely a rundown of everything that we know about Bush screwing up in terms of pre-9/11 policy. The fact that he spent half of his time at his ranch during the first 8 months of his presidency, the lack of attention he gave to the memo entitled "Bin Ladin determined to attack within the US," his father's involvement with the Bin Ladin family and their investments into Bush's companies. There are no major logical jumps in his arguments, as some have claimed. He points to evidence that is inconclusive, and suggests a way to look at it other than the way Bush would have it presented. It is not technically correct and it is somewhat manipulative, but keep in mind that this is not objective reporting. He is doing his best to build a case. Many critics will carp over this section of the movie, and will have a right to do so, but its points are still valid.

The film really hits its stride when Moore gets to the way the Bush administration is treating the war in Iraq. Interviews with the soldiers show that many do not really know what they are doing in Iraq. There is a scene where Moore cuts between officers saying that it is their job to make the Iraqis like them and soldiers arresting Iraqis, with family members looking on is disbelief. The edititng is rather slick, but the point is that there is a large gap between what everyone is saying and what is actually happening. There is footage of Americans killed in bombings with burned corpses littering the streets, as Iraqis run up to beat those corpses with sticks. Graphic stuff. And why are we there? WMD. Oil. There is a section of the movie showing a business conference where men in suits debate the most efficient way to take money from Iraq. Then Moore cuts back to the fighting.

The Bush administration has placed a lot of emphasis on the relatively low amount of casulaties in Iraq, but the point is that those casualties have not slowed, they are in fact increasing. Moore interviews the families of some of the soldiers killed in Iraq, driving home the point that these deaths are people, they are not statistics. Perhaps the most powerful scene in the movie is one where a woman who lost a son visits Washington. On the street, she meets another woman who has lost children in Iraq, as they commiserate, another woman, a warhawk, approaches them, telling them to stop complaining about the war, that it's all staged. The mourning woman rounds on the hawk, telling the place and time where her son was killed. "How is that staged?" The hawk is silent for a moment, then tells her to blame it on al-Qaeda. The mourner stalks away in anger, then turns to the camera and tells Moore that it wasn't al-Qaeda who sent her son to Iraq to die.

Despite the bluntness with which Moore directs the film, he makes a very valid point. Politics these days is about staying out of trouble. Its about doing what is popular and maximizing your profits. And if what is popular and what is profitable do not match up, you do what is profitable and make it popular. Because that's good business. This war is a horrible example of this. It is (well, it was) popular, it is profitable, and it is pointless.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Why are we there? There is no WMD. There are some links to al-Qaeda, but no more than in any other Middle Eastern country, including Saudi Arabia. We ended Sadaam's regime (no worse than many other dicators) by replacing it with a terrible, chaotic warzone with no immediate hope of making peace. And the cost is hundreds of American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives.

Final analysis: Despite any personal feelings about Moore, he is right. Maybe not right all the time, but right when it counts.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-06-25 10:19am

I don't generally agree with Moore and proably will not see the film, but what is his central thesis of F911?

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-06-25 11:31am

Well, Moore can be a little thorny at times, but i do find myself agree with him more often than not. The conversation between the warhawk and the woman who lost her son is very tragic and it shows just how devided we are as a country and how some gutless people find it easy to critisise those who mourn their dead, especially when it isnt their son buried in the earth

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-06-25 02:39pm

A question, Bugsby.

Was Moore preaching to the choir in your case? That is, did you enter the theater with a positive impression of the kinds of points you expected him to make? Was his film merely a creative rehashing of arguments and positions you already identified with?

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-06-25 03:42pm

To be honest, yes. I already have a bit of a thing against Bush and have opposed the war from the start. That being said, I believe the film is still solid. It is not likely to sway too many people from the other side because of the caustic method in which the film is presented. That won't go over too well with people who support the war. But the dirt way Moore makes his arguments makes them no less valid.

In terms of "is this a rehashing of old arguments," the answer is yes and no. There is a lot of familiar material. That is what drags the first part of the movie down... it's all been said (although a lot of it has been ignored). Someone who keeps on top of these things should be familiar with everything Moore shows.... up until he gets to the war footage. What is best about Fahrenheit is that it really gets into the nuts and bolts of the war. Its not just footage of violence that has been suppressed by a careful White House and a squeamish meida. It is also interviews with soldiers and people involved in the war to create a sense of what it is like to be in Iraq at this time and during major military operations. The revelations are somewhat scary.

Go see the movie and feel free to disagree with me. I am going on vacation for a while, so I cant debate with you, but use this thread for your own debates. Moore's film is dirty and flawed, but abolutely necessary. Go see it!

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-06-25 03:45pm

Augustus wrote:I don't generally agree with Moore and proably will not see the film, but what is his central thesis of F911?

His central thesis is that Bush had it in for Iraq from the second he took office, because his father didnt like him and he has vested interest in many oil companies that have been looking greedily at Iraq since the first Gulf War. 9/11 gave him the excuse he needed, and following the 9/11 attacks he manipulated public opinion to make this war possible. But what he started is something very terrible. War is hell. And this hell on earth was started because of the prejudices of a man looking to satisfy his big supporters in Texas oil.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-06-25 03:52pm

From all I've heard, the documentary preaches to the converted, convincing few who are already of a mind to support one candidate or another, assuming any but those supporting Kerry/Moore see the film.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-06-25 03:59pm

jegs2 wrote:From all I've heard, the documentary preaches to the converted, convincing few who are already of a mind to support one candidate or another, assuming any but those supporting Kerry/Moore see the film.

It's hard to convert Bushites when your central thesis is that Bush is an insensitive, soft money whore. That doesnt make his points any less valid. It just means that the people he attacks in the movie (Bush and his supporters) will not be Moore's best friend after seeing this film.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-06-25 05:06pm

I don't care for Bush at all, but I also don't care for Moore's ideas about how far one can strech the facts in a documentary, either.

I'm not going to see it until it's been out for a while, and people from both sides have had a say about the accuracy.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-06-25 10:53pm

Got back from seeing it half an hour ago.

It's not a documentary. It's a propaganda movie designed to slam Bush against the ground as hard and as many times as possible. It doesn't attempt to build a logical case against the enemy. It doesn't try to provide all the facts. The single purpose is to make Bush look as horrible as can reasonably be achieved. And with this goal in mind, it does very well.

Moore resembles a rotting egg, but he has done the right thing. I don't care if it takes illogical and emotionally-charged propaganda films to take down the great leader, it has to be done. If this will help that happen, Moore has to be commended for it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-25 11:31pm

Seggybop wrote:Got back from seeing it half an hour ago.

It's not a documentary. It's a propaganda movie designed to slam Bush against the ground as hard and as many times as possible. It doesn't attempt to build a logical case against the enemy. It doesn't try to provide all the facts. The single purpose is to make Bush look as horrible as can reasonably be achieved. And with this goal in mind, it does very well.

Moore resembles a rotting egg, but he has done the right thing. I don't care if it takes illogical and emotionally-charged propaganda films to take down the great leader, it has to be done. If this will help that happen, Moore has to be commended for it.

Good to see the left isn't letting the facts get in the way.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-06-25 11:37pm

Something funny i heard about how he went to some congressmen,and other politicians and asked them to sign their kids for military service and go to warzones,and they were not interested which makes it interesting they don't mind American kids dying in combat as long as its not one of their kids.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-25 11:38pm

Stormbringer wrote:Good to see the left isn't letting the facts get in the way.

Last I heard Moore’s film was entirely factually based (he better had as it’s sure to be one of the most scrutinised and nitpicked films ever), he just puts his own spin on them LIKE EVERY BODY ELSE.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-25 11:47pm

Montcalm wrote:Something funny i heard about how he went to some congressmen,and other politicians and asked them to sign their kids for military service and go to warzones,and they were not interested which makes it interesting they don't mind American kids dying in combat as long as its not one of their kids.

Funny, but among those he actually got one Congressman that had a relative (nephew?) going over there and naturally he declined to show that much.

And of course I love the implication that the Congressmen ought to force their children to go. Last time I checked we didn't force anyone to join the armed force, we have a volunteer military. So this anti-draft type crap seems a bit odd.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-25 11:48pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Good to see the left isn't letting the facts get in the way.

Last I heard Moore’s film was entirely factually based (he better had as it’s sure to be one of the most scrutinised and nitpicked films ever), he just puts his own spin on them LIKE EVERY BODY ELSE.

And you'll note that was directed toward Seggybop's rather pathetic by any means necessary speech.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-06-25 11:59pm

It is pathetic. I don't care. Moore's propaganda will help unseat Bush, and that's a good thing.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-26 12:00am

Stormbringer wrote:Funny, but among those he actually got one Congressman that had a relative (nephew?) going over there and naturally he declined to show that much.

And of course I love the implication that the Congressmen ought to force their children to go. Last time I checked we didn't force anyone to join the armed force, we have a volunteer military. So this anti-draft type crap seems a bit odd.

It isn’t “anti-draft” crap it’s anti hypocrisy crap when you consider how few of the hawks served and how few of their children are serving Moore was asking a very relevant question. As for the guy with the nephew serving unless he’s childless that just doesn’t cut it, Moore asked if he’d like to sign his kids ups not his brothers/sisters kids.

Stormbringer wrote:And you'll note that was directed toward Seggybop's rather pathetic by any means necessary speech.

Endoursing a bit of selective editing is hardly “by any means necessary”.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-06-26 12:00am

Stormbringer wrote:
Montcalm wrote:Something funny i heard about how he went to some congressmen,and other politicians and asked them to sign their kids for military service and go to warzones,and they were not interested which makes it interesting they don't mind American kids dying in combat as long as its not one of their kids.
Funny, but among those he actually got one Congressman that had a relative (nephew?) going over there and naturally he declined to show that much.

And of course I love the implication that the Congressmen ought to force their children to go. Last time I checked we didn't force anyone to join the armed force, we have a volunteer military. So this anti-draft type crap seems a bit odd.

But with the Patriot Act and all the shit GWB and friends are doing do you think there's a possibility they bring back forced drafting.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-06-26 12:04am

For the thousandth fucking time, no there will not be a draft.

Jesus.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-26 12:09am

Plekhanov wrote:It isn’t “anti-draft” crap it’s anti hypocrisy crap when you consider how few of the hawks served and how few of their children are serving Moore was asking a very relevant question.

Why it is they should have to force their children to serve (when no one else's are being either mind you) in order to be credible? Should we require those that were for peace go and serve as human sheilds before they could speak on the issue?

Plekhanov wrote:As for the guy with the nephew serving unless he’s childless that just doesn’t cut it, Moore asked if he’d like to sign his kids ups not his brothers/sisters kids.

And again, Moore is simply trotting out an old anit-draft tactic with out bothering to explain why it is that a Congressman should have to force one of their children to fight in order to do their job as they see fit. The whole thing is particularly amusing in that he doesn't even own up to having his pointless stunt back fire on him, but the it's in no way relevant to the issue.

Stormbringer wrote:Endoursing a bit of selective editing is hardly “by any means necessary”.

But he didn't say a bit of editing, he said whatever needs to be done to get Bush out of office.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-26 12:12am

Montcalm wrote:But with the Patriot Act and all the shit GWB and friends are doing do you think there's a possibility they bring back forced drafting.

For one thing, the Patriot Act doesn't allow for the re-instating of the draft. Nor does any pending legislation seriously proposed by either side. So right now all it is is a paranoid fantasy that a bunch of liberal pundits have taken to trotting out lately as yet another "It's Veitnam" scare tactic.

The draft returning any time soon is as good as impossible for a host of reasons. None of which have changed in the Bush Administration.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-06-26 12:15am

Right... although Moore certainly doesn't reedit Bush's speech together to have him say things he didn't, or anything like that, he takes countless things out of context and presents them in a matter to make them seem interrelated. He makes a lot of assertions without providing evidence. He ignores components of things that he's describing so that he can make the exact point that he wants.

None of it is a lie, but no way you can call it a balanced representation of the facts. The only purpose is to make Bush look bad using selected footage of events related to him. I don't like using propaganda to manipulate people any more than other people, but something like this is nothing compared to the idiocy Bush has done.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-26 12:48am

Stormbringer wrote:Why it is they should have to force their children to serve (when no one else's are being either mind you) in order to be credible?

What’s all this about forcing people? He’s simply asking the question why are only other people’s children risking their lives in the wars of choice you support.

Should we require those that were for peace go and serve as human sheilds before they could speak on the issue?

Non sequitur, please explain the logical justification for this point.

And again, Moore is simply trotting out an old anit-draft tactic with out bothering to explain why it is that a Congressman should have to force one of their children to fight in order to do their job as they see fit.

Again what’s with this force thing? It’s a cheap stunt to show the congressional members hypocrisy and quite a good one too.

The whole thing is particularly amusing in that he doesn't even own up to having his pointless stunt back fire on him, but the it's in no way relevant to the issue.

It didn’t backfire because THAT GUY’S KIDS AREN’T SERVING Moore didn’t ask about his nephews.

Stormbringer wrote:But he didn't say a bit of editing, he said whatever needs to be done to get Bush out of office.

No he didn’t Seggybop said

Seggybop wrote:I don't care if it takes illogical and emotionally-charged propaganda films to take down the great leader, it has to be done.

that is a world away from “by any means necessary” or “whatever needs to be done” you make it sound like he was proposing a coup.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2004-06-26 01:05am

Seggybop wrote:It is pathetic. I don't care. Moore's propaganda will help unseat Bush, and that's a good thing.

Do you really think Bush is going to lose because of this movie? As polarized as the nation is at this time I doubt it's going to change anyone's mind.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-06-26 01:26am

It's tough to say. I can't see how anyone could possibly support Bush in any case, so don't ask me...