I haven't seen it.
But it's named "9/11"
does Moore try to explain why the terrorists attacked us on 9/11? Play videos of Osama's speeches?
Or like Columbine, is the thesis ignored to make different points?
I suspect he is right, which is why I tend to hope that lots of swing voters (1) see the film, but then (2) find out how thoroughly Moore has sought to deceive them. Could well boomerang on the left and push a few percentage points over to Bush.
Imagine how the media would "greet" an otherwise similar film trying to pick on Kerry instead of Bush. Good lordy.
BUMP to finish later. Fascinating read so far. Hitchens absolutely slaughters Moore.
Thanks for the post. A long article but well worth reading.
great article. try to save it.
I wouldn't even call Michael Moore a scumbag. I think that would be highly insulting.....to scumbags.
"Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible."
The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.
Isikoff was just on O'Reilly's show talking about an upcoming issue of Newsweek in which he takes Moore to task for playing loose with the facts. Aside from the misrepresentations made about the Saudi flights out of the US after 9/11, Isikoff also takes issue with the Carlysle/Bush cabal, pointing out that GW cancelled one of the most lucrative Carlysle contracts...something extremely rare in this post 9/11 world. If Moore is going to sue everybody who attacks his movie, he's going to be a very busy man-boy.
So,the darling of Hollywood and the Democrat Party believes that Osama is innocent until proven guilty.
I wonder if the Democrats will put that in their party platform at the convention.
Point of the first: Mr. Moore, having caught your act twice now, you are intentionally, personally, repugnant. I think perhaps you are trying to cash in on the minority/oppressed/disabled list, but I do not see piggish lack of manners as a DSMIV recognised disability, though that is subject to change at a moment's notice.
Does make a body wonder why I work 2 jobs plus to keep body and soul together and this turd with two feet probably has more money than I will ever see.
My congratulations to Ray Bradbury, who is sueing Mr. Moores' slovenly ass off for ripping his title from the 60's.
I was sweating reading this. Moore is pummled into a thick soup.
Don't look for Hitchens to be interviewed about this film on any lib "fairminded" tv talk show. Moore continues to get the fawning treatment from a succession of lib toadies and fellow travelers. Dissenters from the Lets-get-rid-of-Bush movement will not be asked questions.
Maybe if enough FReeper mail him the link or article he would read it. He does acknowledge that he has since learned of the lies in Bowling For Columbine:
Roger Ebert: (Fahrenheit) '9/11': Just the facts? (in defense of Michael Moore documentaries)
The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.
Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.
[snip]
Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies.