NEW '9/11' FLICK HAS FAR 'MOORE' FIZZLE THAN SIZZLE ("Fahrenheit 9/11," )

M.Moore is simply exercising his right to voice his opinion. If you want to live in a communist country, there are options out there for you!

You mean he's exercising his right to extort and manipulate the truth don't you?

After watching his “Fahrenheit 9/11,” one has to have a certain admiration for Michael Moore.
It takes a definite genius to be able to manipulate well-educated people.
Of course, I was shocked by Moore’s film and his blatant disregard for truth.
But even more startling was the reaction I have heard this week from other people who saw the “documentary” and who are Republicans, conservatives or political moderates – but all well-educated.
All of them were overwhelmed by Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” and said they already have decided to vote against Bush and for John Kerry. I count now about a dozen people that I would not have believed could be so affected, including one of my doctors.
This in-kind donation comes in the form of slanted nightly news coverage, the print media, books and even Hollywood’s efforts.
It is now evident that the Moore film will have a value of at least $250 million for the Kerry effort to win the White House.
Moore’s concoction of Hate Soup is being completely swallowed. This November it will sway independent voters, completely energize the Democratic base – and lead to increased donations to the Kerry coffers.
'The Real Intent'
Moore claims that this is a movie about Bush’s failure to handle the events that led up to 9/11.
But the opening of the documentary reveals that his real intent was to inflict as much political damage on Bush as possible.
He does so by having viewers relive his version of the 2000 election crisis in an effort to show that George Bush a) is an illegitimate president and b) stole the election from Al Gore.
I’m not sure what the election controversy has to do with Sept. 11.
But in discussing this event, Moore uses the same old arguments that somehow Bush stole the election and squeaked through in Florida.
In a sequence of footage he shows news clips of the 2000 Election Night where the major news anchors flip-flopped their prediction that Al Gore had won Florida.
But he could just as easily have shown clips of the networks declaring Gore the winner of Florida – an hour before all the polls in the state had closed.
As Republicans have pointed out, this had the effect of lowering Republican turnout by as many as 50,000 votes in Florida’s Panhandle.
As it turned out, Bush won Florida by a squeaker – but there is little dispute that had the media not acted deviously in calling the election early in Florida, Bush would have won quite handily.
I might add that Moore could have noted that the major networks had been asked not to call Florida before the polls closed – as they customarily do for every other state – because it could skew the results.
But Moore did not even mention that issue. His intent is not to get to the truth behind Sept. 11. It is instead to remind people that Bush is an illegitimate president and to stir up Democratic ranks to come out on Election Day.
’The Saudi Stuff’
My doctor pointed out to me that he was so bothered by “the Saudi stuff” – meaning the Bush family connections with the Saudi Arabians revealed by Moore – he will not vote for Bush.
Moore claims that Bush never really held the Saudis accountable for their ties to al-Qaida because of these “family connections.”
As I asked my doctor, “Why, then, are the Saudis trying to defeat Bush this election year?”
He looked shocked. If the Saudis really wanted Bush re-elected this year, gas would be selling for $1.25 a gallon today. Gasoline is still closer to $2 a gallon – and even if the price drops, it will only marginally help Bush. Clearly the Saudis could have made a major contribution to Bush by revving the U.S. economy this year with low oil prices.
The Saudi Arabians may like the Bush family on a personal level. But they are clearly afraid of him and his national security team, which has held Saudi Arabia accountable as never before.
Gone are the Clinton-Gore days when the Saudis could walk all over the United States, pay lip service to us and give huge amounts of money to al-Qaida front groups and other terrorists around the world.
Remember the Khobar Towers bombing? During the Clinton years, the Saudis would not even cooperate with the FBI’s investigation.
The Saudis did not want Bush to be so vigorous in his war on terror. That is clear.
But by showing a montage of pictures of George Bush and his father shaking hands and smiling with Saudi princes, Moore tries to “prove” that somehow the relationship was improper.
The Moore “evidence” sounded like something out of a Lyndon Larouche propaganda flyer: a photograph of the queen of England smiling with the president of the United States. Aha! This proves Larouche’s contention that the British monarchy secretly controls the White House.
So much for conspiracy theories created out of “guilt by association” techniques. Saudi Arabia is a major country in the Middle East and one of the most vitally important for the United States. It is smart and good politics for the Bush family and other American leaders to have close and developing ties with the Saudis.
Nor did I buy the claim that Michael Moore uncovered some huge smoking gun, as he suggests in his film.
As it turned out, one of the men who served with George Bush in the National Guard during the 1970s was James R. Bath.
Bath has gone on to have ties with the Saudi Arabians. So what? Moore also implies that Bath funded George Bush’s business enterprises with Saudi money, a claim already categorically denied.
’9/11: Bush Did Nothing to Stop It’
It’s interesting that Michael Moore never focuses on the Clinton administration’s culpability in Sept. 11.
The Sept. 11 Commission and other intelligence reports say that the plot to bomb the World Trade Center began in the mid 1990s – as early as 1996.
During the same time, numerous U.S. targets were hit, with very little retaliation from the U.S.
For five years the terrorists plotted, with many entering and training in the U.S. during the period Bill Clinton was president.
Yet there is almost no discussion of this in Michael Moore’s film. Why?
On Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had been in office for less than eight months.
Anyone who knows how the federal government functions would know that the president, in such a short time, would have limited influence over the government and its policies.
For instance, only three political appointments had been made to the Pentagon by Sept. 11; one of those was Donald Rumsfeld.
At the time of 9/11, most of the government was still staffed by the appointments Bill Clinton had made – including at the CIA and FBI and almost every other federal agency. Certainly President Bush has some culpability in the events of Sept. 11, but reasonable people should wonder why he receives all the blame while his predecessors receive none.
’But Bush Knew They Were Going to Hijack Planes’
As the 9/11 Commission report has revealed, Bush was informed in a memo in August 2001 that al-Qaida was intent on hitting targets within the U.S. and was even considering hijacking planes.
Moore uses this information again as a smoking gun that Bush should have done more and that somehow he should have taken steps to stop the hijackers.
Perhaps.
But I also have a feeling that the president gets warnings of this type – some real, some not so real – every day.
Recently, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that a day did not go by that his police commissioner or some other agency chief called him about a potential threat to the city.
Obviously, almost all such threats never materialize. What was Bush supposed to have done had he known there were potential hijackings under way?
He could have notified the public about that threat and every other threat the U.S. gets.
Criticism of the administration since Sept. 11 has led the administration to regularly reveal “chatter” that suggests threats.
Moore, of course, doesn’t applaud the administration for doing so. He suggests in his film that the terror warnings are just an effort to scare and manipulate the public.
In the Moorewellian world we live in, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
And the CIA intelligence report warning of hijackings never informed the president that that terrorists were planning to use commercial jets as flying bombs.
This was a significant failure of our intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA and FBI, which failed to take into account available intelligence that hijackers were preparing to attack the U.S. – and not alerting the president to previous intelligence showing that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups had plotted to use jets as human flying bombs.
Had that possibility been mentioned in that August memo, I would agree that Bush would be more culpable for not having been more proactive. But that possibility was never mentioned, and I don’t believe it was Bush’s role dream up what the hijackers might do.
’Weapons of Mass Destruction’
The pretext of the war was that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S. primarily because he was developing weapons of mass destruction.
The U.S. cited some evidence that appears now to have been faulty. But what is clear is that Saddam Hussein refused to abide by numerous U.N. resolutions and treaty obligations he had signed that required full inspections.
Is it our fault that we held this rogue leader accountable to international law?
Weapons of mass destruction include biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. We now know that Saddam had a biological and chemical program and was trying to develop nuclear programs.
Can we fault the president for acting on the best of intentions? What would have happened if Bush had not acted and five years later Saddam had killed 250,000 Americans with an anthrax attack?
Also missing from Moore’s film are the serious statements that Clinton and many of his top officials made about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
In one warning, Clinton said that Saddam Hussein was developing such weapons and that he could use them if he was not stopped.
Had Moore, in fairness, showed just one of these Clinton clips, the claims of his “documentary” would have been eviscerated.
No, in Moore’s Hate Soup, Bill Clinton is not an ingredient.
’Blacks and the War’
Michael Moore is very clever.
He is working on behalf of the Democratic Party for this year’s election.
He offers some passing criticism of the Democrats, but he is still rooting for them.
In his film, a maimed soldier from Iraq says that he’s voting Democrat this year and doing everything he can to help the Democrats. (Funny, that’s what Michael Moore’s also doing!)
Moore knows that the African-American constituency is a key component of the Democratic Party. The Democrats need the African-American vote to win.
Typically, they’ve been getting 90 percent of the vote. But in a close election, every percent counts. They can’t have blacks go off the reservation, so to speak – not this year.
So Moore cleverly begins his film with the Congressional Black Caucus’ efforts to stop the Electoral College procedures. (I am baffled as to what this has to do with Sept. 11.)
And again, Moore implies throughout his film that somehow young black men are being used as cannon fodder for Bush’s war on terror. It is they, not white young people, being sent to Iraq to die.
Moore never makes this claim outright because he knows that statistical evidence shows blacks are not dying in Iraq in any disproportionate number to their percentage of the U.S. population. (A similar myth was created by the media during the Vietnam War. The statistics show that blacks died in Vietnam at about the same percentage as their population.)
The clear impression from Moore is that Bush is an elitist white racist, along with many congressmen who don’t have their sons or daughters in the U.S. military.
Moore conveniently fails to note that a very large number of congressmen and senators have served in the military and risked their lives for their country.
He also fails to inform his audience that there is probably a very small number of congressmen and senators with children of recruiting age.
On so many points and in so many ways, Michael Moore is extremely manipulative.
I was shocked at the end of the film when people clapped thunderously. It looked like an audience that was sophisticated and educated.
But they apparently don’t even know the basic facts of what’s happening in the world today.
I do believe that the Bush administration made mistakes in the Iraq war. Mistakes are made in all wars.
But I do not believe that Bush was wrong in going after Saddam Hussein or had a malevolent intention – as Moore suggests.
The Real Michael Moore
I remember when I first watched Moore’s first blockbuster documentary, “Roger and Me.”
I knew it had a liberal bias but I sort of liked Michael Moore.
How can you not like an average guy going against a corporate giant such as GM’s chairman, Roger Smith?
It is human nature to like to see David take on Goliath.
So it is easy to understand the cheers as Moore takes on the president, vice president and leadership of the country – and shows apparent hypocrisy.
I understand the positive reaction Moore’s film has received by many.
But who is Michael Moore?
When Michael Moore’s TV series (which turned out to be a very big flop) came out in the 1980s, I tuned in.
I thought it would be as interesting as his “Roger and Me” documentary.
But instead of taking on the rich and powerful, the typical show demonstrated time and time again Moore’s belief that the average American is stupid, ignorant, dumb.
It’s no contradiction that Moore went to Europe recently and said that Americans were “stupid.”
In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” he hits a nerve again, because he takes on what appear to be the rich and the powerful and the elite. But what he doesn’t reveal is that he hates the rest of us too.
Take, for example, the grieving mother in the film who lost her son in Iraq.
She talks of her love for Jesus and how she has relied on Him during this period.
It was a touching moment, especially for anyone who is a Christian. But one wonders why Moore would use that footage, because he is like a lot of other liberal elitists who don’t exactly have a history of attending Billy Graham crusades.
In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if his next documentary is about “Jesus Freaks.”
So that’s the bottom line: Michael Moore is not interested in truth, he’s interested in political action, achieving goals and manipulating people. He can do “whatever it takes” to achieve the objectives.
It’s a dangerous pot of soup Michael Moore has concocted, and it is sad that so many people haven’t discovered that it is a deceptive potion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.