Posted on 07/27/2004 7:19:52 AM PDT by ConservativeMajority
If it's hurting your feelings, don't watch the silly damn thing!
OMG, you beat me to it. If a MOVIE overturns all the gung-ho feelings they had going into it, maybe they were traitors-in-training in the first place.
Our soldiers face fear and heartbreak every day. And now they have to deal with manufactured lies of someone with a chip on his shoulder.
And these Michael Moore supporters are the ones who want to run our country.
If this isn't a plea for W. supporter to get their friends to register and vote, I don't know what is.
This is a very important article by Jeff Gannon.
.
I have not and will not see Moore's movie, but I just read Roger Simon's article in today's Wall street Journal. He describes some of the innuendo in the film that mocks and denigrates actions of soldiers. This has to be painful and demoralizing. I hope the troop leaders at every level understand how insidious this evil can be to the high ideals of our fighting men and women.
Ask a Marine what he feels about it. He/She will tell you that Mooreon can go pound sand up his flabby butt! The Army has been busy for TOO MANY YEARS with crap like sensitivity training and COTS (Consideration of Others Training) to be of warrior material.
When lies are told on this magnitude, they must be denounced by all men of good will. President Bush should have denounced it, either personally or through his spokesperson.
But as usual, our President went into his caccoon mode and no big name RINOS dared to confront the liar Moore.
And we are now seeing the result.
Thanks for your sensitivity to the stresses our troops in Iraq already have to deal with every day. </sarcasm
Got that right.
Middle America supports our troops and we do not go see the stupid hate america micheal moore 7-11
They are made to wonder if people at home appreciate what they do and the risks they take. And Michael Moore gains.
They are discomfited by the thought that they will serve with honour, distinction and valour, to come home to an empty echo, with Michael Moore sitting on a pile of cash he has made from denouncing their efforts.
Michael Moore is a nasty piece of work - fortunately he already has the worst fate - to be who he is. Eventually, and it may ever be so slow, he will be exposed for what he is. Truth will out. Truth will triumph. Our left wing propagandist friends would do well to remember it.
Regards, Ivan
Seems odd that the troops have illegal copies of the film. Will the government be cracking down on this piracy?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1179385/posts?page=8#8
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005402
When Punchline Trumps Honesty
There's more McCarthy than Murrow in the work of Michael Moore.
BY SCOTT SIMON
Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Michael Moore has won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, and may win an Oscar for the kind of work that got Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Jack Kelly fired.
Trying to track the unproven innuendoes and conspiracies in a Michael Moore film or book is as futile as trying to count the flatulence jokes in one by Adam Sandler. Some journalists and critics have acted as if his wrenching of facts is no more serious than a movie continuity problem, like showing a 1963 Chevy in 1956 Santa Monica.
A documentary film doesn't have to be fair and balanced, to coin a phrase. But it ought to make an attempt to be accurate. It can certainly be pointed and opinionated. But it should not knowingly misrepresent the truth. Much of Michael Moore's films and books, however entertaining to his fans and enraging to his critics, seems to regard facts as mere nuisances to the story he wants to tell.
Back in 1991 that sharpest of film critics, the New Yorker's Pauline Kael, blunted some of the raves for Mr. Moore's "Roger and Me" by pointing out how the film misrepresented many facts about plant closings in Flint, Mich., and caricatured people it purported to feel for. "The film I saw was shallow and facetious," said Kael, "a piece of gonzo demagoguery that made me feel cheap for laughing."
His methods remain unrefined in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Mr. Moore ignores or misrepresents the truth, prefers innuendo to fact, edits with poetic license rather than accuracy, and strips existing news footage of its context to make events and real people say what he wants, even if they don't. As Kael observed back then, Mr. Moore's method is no more high-minded than "the work of a slick ad exec."
The main premise of Mr. Moore's recent work is that both Presidents Bush have been what amounts to Manchurian Candidates of the Saudi royal family. Mr. Moore suggests (he depends so much on innuendo that a simple, declarative verb like "says" is usually impossible) the Saudi government, having soured on their pawns for unstated reasons, launched the attacks of Sept. 11.
----snip----
*****Mr. Moore tries hard to identify himself with U.S. troops and their concerns. But he spends an awful lot of effort depicting them as dupes and brutes. At one point in "Fahrenheit 9/11," someone off-camera prods a U.S. soldier into singing a favorite hip-hop song with profane lyrics. Mr. Moore then runs the soldier's voice over combat footage, to make it seem as if the soldier were insensitively singing along with the destruction.*****
*****In another scene, U.S. soldiers make savage jokes about the awkward effects of rigor mortis on one part of the corpse of an Iraqi soldier. I do not doubt the authenticity of those pictures. But I also have no particular reason to trust it. A few basic details, like where and when the video was shot, are considered traditional reporting techniques (especially after the front-page photos of British soldiers brutalizing Iraqi prisoners turned out to be frauds). A few other basic facts might have informed the audience. Was the Iraqi killed in battle? By a suicide bomb? Moore says the U.S. soldiers are good boys turned coarse in an immoral war. But I have also heard those kind of ugly and anxious jokes about corpses from overstressed emergency room physicians. ******
In the New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote that, "Viewers may come away from Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true," and that he "uses association and innuendo to create false impressions." Try to imagine those phrases on a marquee. But that is his rave review! He lauds "Fahrenheit 9/11" for its "appeal to working-class Americans." Do we really want to believe that only innuendo, untruths, and conspiracy theories can reach working-class Americans?
The copies might not be illegal. It was reported on the other thread that it is DOD policy to bring current popular films onto the bases.
If so, one might question the wisdom of this policy.
I am sure that the underground of Ramsay Clarke, Medea Benjamin, and assorted haters of conservative non-genuflecting-to-the-UN America, are distributing copies with the approval of Michael Moore.
These evil people are trying their best to turn this war into a 'new' Vietnam, and are waiting for the 'new' John Kerry to come home and denounce his brothers in arms.
"We are mortal; but in dealing with truth, we are immortal." Thoreau- There is more truth to harvested from one day endured in combat than from all of film making.
I am just waiting for some enterprising filmmaker to make the same type of film on the peace movement and the Democrats --- mocking, secretely taped, important pronouncements linking Kerry to the communist party, etc.
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.