I, for one, would love to see another movie, and I think it would work out.

While I loved Fahrenheit 9/11, I did find it to be a little too elaborate at times. While this is part of Michael Moore's documentary style, I liked the more subtle approach of Bowling for Columbine.

Clearly, the goal of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to topple Bush. Seeing as he can't have this goal anymore, I'm betting he'd pick the more subtle approach for a sequel. And by golly, I find the topic dead interesting.

Finally, and most importantly. 8 years may seem like a long time, but in the long, deep breath of history, it's nothing. A documentary, on the other hand, will last forever, and I'm sure it'll be interesting to see Michael Moore's view on 2000-2008, in say 100 years time.

I have absolutely no doubt that 50 years from now his movie will be seen as political propaganda on ae level with that pro-Nazi films during Hitler's reign.

Vic

Oh Vic... Vic Vic Vic.

I love ya dude... but honestly, I have absolutely no doubt that 50 years from now Bush himself will be seen as the greatest villain and cause of global disparity and destabilization of our generation.

Except for Oil company executives... they'll still love him and convince the Religous Right that killing for Oil and a military presence within striking distance of all your enemies is somehow something Jesus died for.

Oh, come on.

The worst villan? Worse than Slobodan Milosevic? Worse than Hussein? Worse than Pol Pot? Worse than bin Laden? Worse than McKevitt? Worse than Jar Jar? (sorry, I had to keep it Movie related)..

Seriously, it's rhetoric like this that leads to the lack of civility and lack of unity that people have had since 2000. If we want a leader that "unites his people," we start with ourselves. I've seen too much good writing and reasoning on this site to expect someone to get so full of rage when Bush is brought up.

No, Michael Moore isn't a Hitler-esque propagandist. THAT type of rhetoric is full of crap as well. Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that Michael Moore is leading the Democrats in the US farther and father away from the legacy of FDR, JFK, and Wellstone; and closer to the anger of Howard Dean and Ted Rall. This is a shame.

We want to believe anything and everything negative about our adversaries. This tactic damaged the US during the 50 and 60s, Damaged the GOP during the 90s, and is on track to do irreversible damage to left in 2004. Again, it's just my opinion, but Michael Moore isn't part of the solution - he is part of the problem.

Hey David.

I see where you're coming from, and for the most part I totally agree. I guess it's a matter of definition.

I think history (right or wrong) leverages the issue of Power when considering "villans". I don't believe Bush would go around kicking kittens or pile driving babies. But out of all the horible guys you mentioned, Bush stands head and shoulders above in terms of power. And as humans, we tends to hold those with most power, the most responsible.

It's hard to fathom, but Bush (who I STRONGLY supported in the 2000 election back in my conservative days) has caused 15x the deaths than that monster and sack of crap Bin Ladin. Heck, BUsh's actions have caused half as many deaths of AMERICANS as Bin Ladin.

A lot of people don't want to count the death of Iraqi soldiers who are now dead... they had moms and dads, wifes and kids, friends and loved ones. Now they're gone. Some will say that's ok because it was "a war" and people die in war.

BUT IT WASN'T A WAR. It was a global bully INVADING and attacking another nation that hadn't attacked it and was essentially powersless to defend itself becuase of the last war lead by Bush senior (which was much more justified than W's antics).

And to top it off, when the rest of the world questioned Bush about the prospect of Invading Iraq (Incuding my own counrty Canada, who did go into Afganastan with the US) he would spout off wild lies about WMD's and accuse any nation that wouldn't support him of not fighting terroisim (even though his own intelligence CLEARLY pointed out that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or Bin Ladin).

Bush won't allow the offical statistics of dead Iraqis to be released, but several organizations put it as high as 50,000... and I haven't heard any of Bush's officials deny it. That breaks my former Bush loving heart.

So yeah, I think when history pans itself out (and this is just wild speculation on my part) Bush will be looked at as having caused the most harm and human suffering (even if he's not the most "evil"). just my two cents worth. Cheers.

For you to promote Michael Moore is a disgrace. Michael Moore is nothing more than a self serving money hungry hyopcrite who serves up heaping amounts of propaganda to take advantage of those not educated on the subject of 9/11. I can cut up hours upon hours of footage and slant things to my opinion if needed to. This is not a talent, this is more closely related to Hitler and NAZI propaganda films. It is widely known that Moore always has many facts incorrect and there have been volumes of text and video documenting this. Rober Ebert even declared this to be true and he liked this film.

Don't you see that it wasn't only that Bush won (3 million votes are not a slim margin either especially if you take out the votes for New York and California); Kerry lost and he lost because of self-servers like Moore, Rather, CBS, the New York Times, Springsteen, Bon Jovi, Howard Dean and the Clintons. They sabotaged his campaign and scared away most of middle America with their left-wing conspiracy craziness.

For Michael Moore to even think about a sequel just further displays not only his greed but confirms his belief that he thinks most Americans are stupid and he will make money off of them as long as they will let him.

I am tired of these anti-American liberals preaching all day just to promote their personal agendas. This is why Bush won and this is why the Democratic party is in serious need of help.

Who cares?

Hey Richard.

Ummm... no offence to you personally, this is just my two cents worth... but why is it Bush supporters claim that is you don't like Bush you don't love America?

And as far all these "hours and hours" of wrong facts from 9/11... I've heard Bush supporters say this all the time. But here's my question... name them. No really... name them. List the lies in 9/11 specifically with your documentation to back up your claim that it's a lie. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm honestly interested in seeing the documentation and proof if it exists.

Oh, and 3 million votes represented less than 2% of the votes. I'd say that's a thin margin by anyones definition. And why would you take out New York and California? I found it interesting that the State most impacted by September 11th voted so strongly against Bush... even with former mayor Julianni backing Bush.

So seriously, I'm not trying to be a smart ass... I'd like to see documentation rather than just rhetoric. If it's there, and you've seen it, I'd like to see it too.

John

This is the part I love best. Not being sarcastic either, but thank you for the invite to the TRUTH. Check out this link, it is a free link to the many innacuracies and deceipts in the film.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

An anti-American to me is someone who not only attacks our President but makes money in the process. If he really believed in his "cause" he would put everything out there for free and not try to rush the DVD in time for the election to get a bigger bang for his buck.

And certainly, he wouldn't be stupid or greedy enough to go back to the well again. If Bush is in for four more years, does it mean this will be an annual event or deposit into his bank account?

Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2 plus 1/4 anyone? Or how about Jason vs. Freddy vs. George? The way his mind goes, it would not be that far a reach in his mind.

John,

This being a movie blog and all, I encourage you to rent "FahrenHYPE 9/11", which does in fact point for point debunk a lot of what is in Moore's film. It was made by Dick Morris, who was a political advisor to former President Bill Clinton.

BTW, my opinion has always been that the reason for the invasion was Saddam's failure to comply with 12 years of U.N. resolutions. Part of the non-compliance was the threat of being invaded, that wasn't just made up by President Bush. The U.N. was "enabling" Saddam and of course there was lot's (billions) of money changing hands in the oil for food program that never went for food.

Have you heard Kofi Annon's(sp) comments about Arafat? Talks about the guy like he's some world hero instead of the terrorist he was. The U.N. can pack sand as far as I'm concerned.

Vic

Screenrant,

I could not agree with you more and unfortunately I have not yet seen Fahrenhype 9/11. What everyone seems to forget is that outside the United States, those who oppose America going to war are those who have their fingers in the pot and do not want to see it go away. Go down the list: the UN (a big disgrace) Kofi Annon should be removed ASAP, France, Russia, Germany and others.

Do they not see that for the first time there are democratic elections in Muslim countries like Afghanastan and Iraq, Libya has basically given up and potentially (if the right thing is done) Palestine will hold democratic elections as well. The Middle East could be a peaceful and democratic area and as history has dictated, democratic countries do not go to war with each other.

Why can't the Michael Moores of the world see that this is not a war with Iraq, this is a war on terror (that is global). Others should stop being so nearsighted. Terrorists will attack irregardless of your belief, lifestyle or anti war opinions.

Ummm... war on Terror?

What Terror? Bush's own cabnit acknowledge that there is and was no connection between Iraq and Al-Quida or Bin Ladin. According to the CIA no terror attacks ever launched on US or US allies ever originated from Iraq.

So how was attacking a basiclly defensless nation (thanks to Bush Senior... who i thought was far more justified in his campaing) who had no ties to terrorism (remember, that idiot Hussein and that other idiot Bin Ladin hated eachother becuase Bin Ladin said Hussein was too secular), had no weapons of Mass destruction (somthing weapons inspectors told the US right from the beginging) a war on terrorisim?

If Bush was interested in Terrorism and fighting the good fight against evil he would have... and should have gone after North Korea, Or Saudi Arabia (you know... the place where the 9/11 terrorists came from).

But he won't go after North Korea because they DO have WMD's but no oil. And he won't go after Saudi Arabia because they are good little obiedient lap dogs to Bush's oil buddies.

So once again I ask you... Why kill 50,000 people(if tht number is correct... and I don't hear anyone arguing about it or claiming otherwise) including the death of over 1000 American soilders doing their jobs. If it wasn't because of WMD's (Which is what Bush swore it was for), and there are no connections to terrorisim... Then why did they attack Iraq?

I'll leave that up to everyone else to answer.

I'm not a Democrat. As a matter of fact I'm a HUGE Regan fan. There was a President who knew how to handle tough situations. He was tough, but never did anything without reason, and always showed great restraint... and the world was a better place because of him. George W. Bush can't hold Regan's socks.

Here's the problem for me. I wish I could believe better about Bush. I rooted for him in 2000, I like the republicans in general... but NO ONE has shown me any valid reason why he attacked another country unprovoked and murdered so many people (including over 1000 of his own). And after the truth came out that there was in fact no WMD's in Iraq, Bush wasn't even man enough to admit the mistake... he just changed stories half way through the book.

John

We could go back and forth all day on this and never see eye to eye and we are both entitled to our opinions. What brought me to post on your site is Michael Moore and his movie and what brought you to respond is the Michael Moore movie. What I would like to know is if you had read the link I posted. You asked for proof about the Moore movie and its inaccuracies and I have provided it. What do you think? I have admitted that I have not seen the other film mentioned, Fahren-hype 911 which goes over these inaccuracies, but have you?

Hey Richard.

Ok, I read over that "59 deciets" stuff. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP! Honeslty, the guy was flat out wrong on a bunch of the stuff... the majority of his points were all just spin, and a load of them were playing on symantics.

Ok, now let me preface myself here. MOST of the anti-Bush and pro-bush stuff floating around out there is pure speculative crap that positions itself mostly on inuendo, spin and symantics (damn my spelling is horrible). For the most part the anti-Bush stuff is even worse than the pro-Bush.

Two very good books to read:

Pro Bush - "Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry, and the Bush Haters" by Washington Times senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon

Anti Bush - "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush" by former Republican White House Counsel John Dean

Among all the babble going on out there from both sides I found these two to be quite informative and very well documented.

But honestly, neither of thses books go very far into supporting or debunking anything from F-9/11.

And as far as the "Hype" film goes, I must admit I haven't seen it myself, but a good friend of mine (Jim Paglanetti) who is a staunch Republican guy in Buffalo and did some phone work for the Bush campaing told me he saw it and wasn't impressed. He said he was hoping for a lot more from it. But like I said, I haven't seen it myself.

None of this goes back my main question that I've been asking for almost a year. "Why invade Iraq?" No WMD's, no Terrorisim or connection to it.

And to say "well, they have democracy now" isn't a valid argument because that was never on Bush's lips when he was preparing to invade and get international support. It was Always, always, always WMD's and vauge references to 9/11 (which Bush's own intelligence showed Iraq had totally no connection to).

To suggest that Iraq having elections now validates the invasion and murder of 50,000 people has dangerous consequences.

Does that now mean that Bush should use military force (aka murdering people) to "civilize" the rest of the world? Doesn't that contradict the very essence of democracy itself? The strongest democracy's in the world are the ones that over time formed themselves like Canada, the US, and the majority of Europe. Not forced on them by a foriegn power. Rome tried that... it didn't end so well for them.

And you're right Richard, we could go back and forth all day on this and never see eye to eye and we are both entitled to our opinions. I just get so tired of the rhetoric from both sides.

"IF YOU CRITIZISE BUSH YOU DON'T LOVE AMERICA"

"BUSH EATS BABIES AND KICKS PUPPIES"

Blah blah blah. I didn't like that Bush Invaded Iraq... but when he did I was really hoping they would show us that Iraq had the secret huge nuclear arrsanal that Bush said they did. That they would turn up this massive infrastructure of chemical weapons manufacuring plants... I WANTED to believe Bush. I still wish I could. Every politian lies. But his lies cost over 1000 brave American soilders who believed in him their lives... and that sucks.

Oh Richard, one more thing:

Just in case i give off the wrong impression. Even though we clearly have differing opinions on this stuff, i still enjoy the conversation and bantter. Cheers.

"IF YOU CRITIZISE BUSH YOU DON'T LOVE AMERICA"

"BUSH EATS BABIES AND KICKS PUPPIES"

John,

You just summarized the situation better than anyone I've seen yet.

Vic

Iron cuts iron and paper cuts paper. Micheal Moore is simply a response to Bush. And the entity that counters Bush may HAVE to annoy the s**t out of you no matter who it is.

The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene is a great book that allows me to at least assess that Bush, like all leaders in the past, will be representative of either the "fall" of America (economically because of its' large army and the fact that's it's no longer a manufacturing-based economy with the added advantage of having a hold on the world's money "for safekeeping" after the WW's 1 & 2, but a service-based one that has to compete with the manufacturing-based/billion population/we-have-our-own-currency of China or that of the European Economic Alliance currency that's currently backed by 350 million people with the UK and Turkey about to be folded in in 2005-2006) or its' rise.

The reality is that petroleum is not a renewable resource. Once it's gone that's it. God ain't makin' no more. And there's apparently not more than 60 years left at the current rate of use.

What the pirate class (now known as the captains of certain industry) and the American government failed to do was prepare us for the waning days of depleting oil reserves. So now it's a say whatever we have to say to get in there and control the oil: "Weapons of MAAASS DES-STRUUUC-TION"! Sounds like some 50s B-movie get-under-your-desk-when-the-commies-strike cry to the masses).

It's telling that America's number export was car manufacturing not a little over 18 years ago and now it's #1 export, to the tune of $20 billion, is...FILMED ENTERTAINMENT.

Here's a script idea: A scientist has to fight off assassins from every country in the world who want steal his secret formula that allows him to clone dinosaurs and then make them decay into useable petroleum within 10 years (verses millions).

Hey, if you guys want some of the point by point stuff from FahrenHYPE 9/11 without seeing the movie, I've listed them in my review.

Vic

"Ok, now let me preface myself here. MOST of the anti-Bush and pro-bush stuff floating around out there is pure speculative crap that positions itself mostly on inuendo, spin and symantics (damn my spelling is horrible). For the most part the anti-Bush stuff is even worse than the pro-Bush." John... I hope you realize that you ARE arguing over COMPLETELY speculated crap.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is pure specualtion/twists and so is that 59 deceits paper. Here's were it matters: are you democratic or republica? That's ALL that matters. Everyone takes the same data and spins it the way that their party wants to hear it. Then, depending on your stance, you choose to believe one more than the other... then you begin to argue with other people about the same damn topic. You both believe you are presenting your own facts when, in reality, you are both presenting the same damn fact.

Another thing, if you read that document you know who Yasin is. You are correct in saying that Iraq and Bin Laden/(9/11) had no connection. But, Iraq was still harboring terrorists... I think everyone has forgotten that the war on terror is on TERRORISM, not bin Lade/al Queda (sp?). Oh, and if you can't remember who Yasin is, let me remind you: he did the '93 WTO bombings and took refugee in Iraq up until Hussein's fall.

In reality: we all need to let F9/11 drop... M.Moore is a douche and shouldn't even be recognized for his work on F9/11... he lies almost as much as any presidential administration does.

Hey Taylor.

Ok, just a quick correction. The US's own intelligence showed that Iraq was not "harboring" Yasin. Yasin was there, but was under no protection or courtesy from Iraq. He was just there. If that's the definition of "Harboring", then the US is also harboring terrorists.

And like I said before, I was a HUGE rebpublican supporter (especially in the Regan years). Bush Jr. couldn't hold Regan's socks. For the most part, I'm quite right wing on most issues. But the Iraq thing for me has nothing to do with Right or Left. Just Right or Wrong. And so far, no one has shown me a legitimate good reason why 50,000 people had to be murdered and 1000 brave American soilders had to die. Was it just to get Yasin?

It wasn't for WMD's like Bush swore it was for. It wasn't for any link between Terrorists and Iraq (which the CIA determined there was no connection). It wasn't for Yasin. So why did Bush decide so many people had to be killed?

F 9/11 (like any good documentary) tells the story from a certain point of view. It is biased. BUt I've yet to see anyone prove any "lies" in it.

Once Bush is thankfully gone, I'll probably be cheering for a Republican president again (as long as it's NOT Chenny, Rumsfeld or Rice).

Or perhaps Democratic nominee General Colin Powell. Now wouldn't that be something.

Cheers.

Now I don't know what you guys are thinking. God knows that we're the only right thinking society in the world. We don't need any of those backward countries on our side. I mean they control all the most precious natural resources in the world right now. If they ever get up out of the fields and decide that they won't work for us anymore we can always go in a smash the hell out of them. I mean our army can do anything if we really want it to. And we don't even need a draft.
This is so much better than trying to encourage growth in those countries, because if they grow too big, become too efficent and well run, they might want to become independent from the financial and logistical that we're giving them. And then they'll be competition for the resources. Imagine the French getting control of the Uranium mines in Africa. The French! I mean they'd sell it to the terrorists. We can only depend on us. Everyone else just wants to be like us and will get in our way any chance they get.
As for Israel, I mean, that's their homeland. They got kicked out and we just helped them go home. I mean that's the thing that all these Islamics hate. That these Jews got to go home. They wouldn't even concede the existence of Israel. Fucking Arabs. I mean come on. This is the kind of people that you have to hate. They just hate the Jews because they're different. They don't want anyone like that living there. So they've been trying to get rid of them.
Nothing there to like.
But I digress.
How can Michael Moore say the word "patriot" about the 9/11 pilots? I mean, he may have been talking about how some radicals thought he was a patriot, but how can he even consider that as a rational point of view? Why would he want anyone to know what some radicals think of us. We KNOW what they think of us.
They think of us just what the rest of the world thinks of us.

...
...
...

Wait.

No, that's stupid.

Farenheit 9/11 based the majority of its info on one man. This man was on national tv not too long ago, and said that none of what was in the movie was his comments. They took fragments of what he said in interviews and pieced them together to create the "so called" statements in which the movie was based.

Micheal Moore is a slob and a faggit

yes i remeber you

I hope he makes the movie. Everything is biased today, it's all opinion-based. Nothing in the news is objective anymore because emotions run too high. No matter what side you're on, the communication is really bad right now in this country. The left thinks the right are all small-minded idiots and judge everything they do. And the right has all the power and tugs at emotions, and backs the left into the corner by calling them "Un-American."

I want to see the movie get made just because I want more information to be readily available, since the our news won't cover anything important. Instead of major news that affects us all, we're hearing about personal trials, Terry Schiavo and celebrities, it's very very sad. Remember when news was just news? Me either.

I don't have all the facts, so I don't know who's right or wrong. I do know that more information is a good thing.

Needle Anus

I have to say Moore is a total ass-hole and extremely anti-american. i mean he is against guns. Its one of the biggest american rights. if we could not bear arms then it just would'nt be the same america anymore. And at a time the whole world was against us he just added fuel to the fire with his anti-america movie.

Moore is a fantastic filmmaker. Not always right, and I often don't agree with him. But I'll take his over-the-top biased propoganda over Bush's stupidity, lies, killing and fear mongering any day.