Have you read ANY of these threads? There’s been something of a consensus reached that Moore is not a journalist; that his documentary–like all documentaries–uses facts to support his opinion. It is not, I repeat, journalism.
Are you really that obtuse?
At least Moore has the footage of Bush at the school at the time in question.
I disagree, this “simple” scene IMO showed more than just kids flying a kite:
Putting Afghanistan and Iraq in the same column by constant repetition was the big lie of the administration, In the movie there was the sequence of Bush and the members of the administration talking and putting Al-Queda and Saddam-Iraq together, and implying many times that they were allies and cut of the same radical cloth. Then, there was a “simple” scene of Iraqi kids happily flying kites, before the war started…
Many forget that the Taliban became infamous, not only for their close support to Al-queda, their treatment of Women, or the destruction of religion’s symbols; but also for banning kites.
That “simple” scene symbolized the huge difference that was between secular Iraq and the Taliban of Afghanistan, and emphasizes the now obvious deception made to convince the American public that Al-queda and Saddam were birds of a feather.
Nice touch, and from there, the movie really began to pick up for me.
As for your quotes on Rice and on how Moore quotes her “out of context” you should not lie by omission 
; by dropping the quote of Powell that was on the movie, Here is more background on what Powell was saying in the movie regarding WoMD:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/9/26/17422/4367
That was on February 24, 2001…
Now, to me this was one of the mayor points of the movie, remember: at that time Powel (and Rice too) was using the same intelligence that Clinton had, and then it was enough to justify only strikes, but not war.
Forward to 2003: There was another quote from Rice that did not appear in the movie, but it appeared in the Economist: it had Rice bragging of the “enhanced” or “enriched” intelligence that the administration had just before the war, she pointed to the great evidence of the now mythical WMD and connections to 9/11.
Only if one ignores the OSP and Chalabi, is that one just might, just might, be tempted to swallow the idea that the administration was innocent of being misled.
Many on the right seem not to bother to ask where the intelligence came from. That “enriched” intelligence was also the one that congress used to then vote, for what eventually turned to be the Iraq resolution, but it is insulting IMO to pretend that there was no effort made to poison the well before we got the water.
On November, we have to get rid of the people that demonstrated incompetence or mendacity by allowing their ideology to taint our intelligence well.
And this is because they are still showing constant signs of having their ideology getting in the way of evidence:
Sounds familiar? Mmm, AFAICR there was egg in Bush face also when one of the sources the administration used, to then say that Iraq was getting Nuclear materials, was… a plagiarized student paper.
I think this administration should be send back to school, they yearn for it…
On November, let us take the tools of war away from this gentleman’s “C” grade administration.
I’m sorry, but I can’t seriously consider this film to be a documentary. If you want to see good documentaries, look at the PBS Frontline series, or some of their other offerings. F-9/11 is more political than educational. There’s nothing at all wrong with that. You might even find it to be a brilliant, even great, political work. But it ain’t no documentary.
“…There was another quote from Rice that did not appear in the movie, but it appeared in the Economist: it had Rice bragging of the “enhanced” or “enriched” intelligence that the administration had just before the war, she pointed to the great evidence of the now mythical WMD and connections to 9/11…”
Got that handy? Love to add it to the collection.
I
Good job with this thread, Doors. This is how it should be: look/listen at what the opposition has to say, address where you think they got it wrong, comment if you feel like sharing anything.
II
On the comment on journalism vs. documentary: the idea that journalism cannot be biased or even outright advocative is a recent construct, for most of the history of journalism it has not shied about using (and yes, selecting) the facts to support a particular party line.
III
On F-9/11: my take on this is that the movie is really a grafting together of TWO short pieces:
(a) a so-so the-Bushes-are-bastards-in-the-Saudis’-pocket piece
(b) a very well-made this-war-is-a-terrible-thing-and-gets-fought-by-the-underprivileged piece
…plus connecting material centered around Bush’s response to 9/11, and on the idea that W’s dim as an unplugged 5-watt bulb under a bucket(*).
Now, starting from the (b), the base statement about the horrors of war is pretty clear, and so is the commentary on how the urban and rural poor end up overrepresented among those who bleed for the system – or else, how the ones who end up being who profit from and hold power over the system are underrepresented at blood time – and it could be a fine observational and even meditational piece. I was specially impacted at the mother having to confront a protestor that claimed American deaths were staged (boy, that’s a real winner…)
But it alone would not logically flow into a “therefore, Bush must go” conclusion. Which is what Michael Moore wants you to leave the theatre thinking.
So he arranges to have it preceded and led into by (a), the muckraking piece on the Bush-Saudi connection, which IMO is much weaker to a great degree because of the elsewhere-mentioned “here are some dots, connect them!” approach (which BTW sounds like “we report, you decide”, doesn’t it?). It, by itself, would not be enough for many people to conclude that Bush must go, either.
Moore seeks to tie them together. And he knows clearly which documentary is the powerful, moving one: the one about those fighting and dying. So that’s the one he uses as his closer.
IV
About the kite-flying, etc.: the scene with the kite-flying kids was extremely brief and it did not look specially idyllic to me. The neighborhood seen *around and behind/i] the kite-flying kid did not look posh at all… It was but a short part of a montage that focused essentially on Baghdad’s middle-class lifestyle (cafe’s, traffic, etc.) On that issue however I do feel that Moore left himself open to be accused of making Baath-era Iraq look like a good place to live. Lib’s assumption that we saw the children of privilege may derive from a perception that only “Baath higher-ups” could possibly have a life, but few states are that totalitarian. Even I could, if I set myself to it, find footage of ordinary people carrying on moderately normal lives and looking reasonably content in countries where the economy is in the crapper and the government makes people disappear in the middle of the night (heck, in the later case it probably behooves them to look happy); specially if I stick to the capital.
The contrast, of course, was supposed to be twofold: with the perception that everyone of our enemies are retrograde fanatics like the Taliban; and with the effects of the chaos of war. But Moore did not handle it well.
As to the claim that however rough the Iraqi people are having it now it’s worth it, that is something that can only be verified years down the road if they indeed end up deciding it was worth it. For now, it’s a fact they’re having a bitch of a time.
V
On the commentaries of the soldiers in service. My brother and I (he took me to it as a Birthday treat) did comment to the effect that “hey, they are not really thinking that this will be heard anywhere… or maybe they’re not really thinking at all”. But I find it not at all uncharacteristic nor unexpected: grunts will gripe. And how. And hey, it’s not like the average E-3 gets training on how to spout off the correct PR spiel even in casual conversation until he’s sure he’s completely out sight, earshot, camera or mic range from any outsider However, I find it interesting that the earlier-referenced UCMJ regs, the limitation on raggin’ on the CinC in the case of officers is included in a specific and explicit clause, but in the case of the enlistees it’s folded into that amorphous language about acts or expressions deleterious to good order and discipline. Which is about par for the course.
VI
In any case, the movie as completed IS entertaining, as polemics go, and a good basis from which to go and look up the sources to verify if his information is right. I had already concluded Bush had to go long before, so it’s not like this really swayed me.
(*)War with the English language notwhitstanding, George W is not mentally deficient. I think many of his policies are foolish, and he can be outright pigheaded about insisting that the “right answer” is crystal clear and he has it, when maybe it is so and maybe it isn’t so. In public speaking he does tend to get distracted and then it looks funny as hell, which I’ll continue to enjoy. It’s just that there are subjects he just doesn’t seem to care about, period; and there are issues about which apparently he cares but his mind is not just made up but encased in concrete. Both things that are dead seriously worrisome to me.
Yeah, but he’s just part of the vast liberal media conspiracy that drowns out conservative voices in America.
Sure there is. Do you know what the single biggest fear of a recruit is? Basic. They see Full Metal Jacket, they think that they’re tough enough to handle it, and I’ll tell you something: even the toughest guy cries like a baby. The recruits are told that it’s not hard, because from the perspective of someone who has already been through it it’s really not, it just seems to be when you’re living it. So to get them over that reluctance, to consummate the relationship, the dance that they all do around each other, the recruiter tells them that it’s all peaches and cream, and Basic isn’t tough, and won’t you please sign right here on the dotted line? Very few people ever regret their decision to join up. In fact, most people thank their recruiters for bringing them to a decision instead of just doing the dick dance until their feet got too cold. It’s a good, safe job that they walked into, and they almost turned it down.
Just to illustrate the point, we have lost to this day 909 people in Iraq, 129 more if we add Afghanistan. Add another 128 for Desert Storm, a few hundred for a myriad of reasons, and a few hundred more for accidents (crashes, 9/11, etc.), and let’s just say that it’s 4,000 people dead since 1979 (we’ll start with Desert One, and yes, the number is probably lowball). 45,000 people die yearly in car accidents. So statistically, you’re safer being in the military for your entire career including occupying a hostile country for well over a year than you are driving a car daily. It’s a small consolation to those who have died, but it’s a risk that we all take, and a small one at that.
People who have nothing are more likely to be happy when they get something. And they do get something. They get a family, a job, and a place to sleep, things that they may not have had before. A person with means may resent the discipline because frankly speaking he/she is more likely to take their freedoms for granted and when they are stripped away they will show discontent. Think about it.
When Bush appoints you, under UN objection, to the post of Universal Lexicography Emperor, then I’ll be happy to take your personal redefinition of a given word at face value. Until then, I’ll use a word according to its *actual * definition.
Your ignorance does not constitute my obtuseness. I’ve seen footage of F9/11 and interviews with its writer/director/producer. It is these that I critique.
First off kudos to ADUSAF for a very thoughtful OP.
John, I’m going to add my voice to the chorus in saying I just don’t get the "skewed misquote"thing. I agree with you that Moore walks a fine line between documentary maker and polemicist, but this misquote thing gets me.
When I read the whole of what Rice said, I thought that if anything it struck me as even more of a tissue of lies and propaganda than the bit Moore showed. Yes, she says that Saddam and his regime weren’t involved in 9/11, but that is one small comment in a whole paragraph that is a pack of lies centred around the suggestion that they were involved in terrorism and extremist religion which is just plain a lie.
So Moore had the option of putting the whole paragraph into the movie (which would have showed Rice to be a liar) or putting in the first sentence and the bit where she says Saddam and his regime weren’t involved in 9/11 which would have given a false impression of balance, or he could have just put in the first sentence, which in fact accurately represents the bollocks that Rice spews.
Where’s the problem?
You’re a petty fucking liar just like the assholes in the administration you pretend to chastise.
What others see as aggression, you would see as “mitigation of coercion”, provided that the aggressive invading army was funded by Libertopian fruitcakes. So technically, you did oppose the war, but solely because of the way it was organised and paid for. If something called something like “Libertopian Fruitcakes Opposed to Saddam’s Coercion” had organised and conned people into paying for a fuckup like Iraq, you’d be OK with that. But when the “Neo-Con Fruitcakes Opposed to Saddams Existence” do exactly the same thing, you can safely pretend that you opposed the war all along.
It’s completely transparent bullshit.
A wonderful example of life imitating THHGTTG.
When come back, bring brain.
When come back, bring comeback.
You’re a liar, pure and simple.
This is a hijack, but I just wanted to let you know that while there have been times I have disagreed with you, I’ve always considered you a reasonable poster, and an asset to the board. I just wanted to let you know that you’ll be missed.
And how is that relevant?
rjung said that anyone who criticizes the movie without seeing it is a coward. The you asked whether Moore was a coward for criticizing Bush for 9/11, when Moore wasn’t present at the Florida elementary school.
You are drawing a connection between these two things, implying that they are similar, when they are not. You might disagree with Moore’s analysis of Bush’s actions, but at least that analysis was based on viewing the video of those actions and reading the reports of journalists and others who were present. It’s hardly the same thing as slamming the movie without having seen it.
OK, you’re hopeless. “Basic training isn’t as bad as you think” is not in and of itself a lie. It’s an opinion. “Give us your name and phone number so that we can cross you off the list to be contacted” as a way of getting a name and phone number for further recruiting is a lie.
Still waiting for the part that addresses your statement that a recruiter can tell on sight who will adjust to military life and who won’t. You’re engaging in profiling and stereotyping, just like the recruiters who target the poor mall did.
Your argument is embarrassingly faulty. How many people ride and drive in cars in the US? About 300 million? How does that compare to the number of soldiers who have fought in Iraq and Afganistan?
909 soldiers would still be alive if not for this ill-begotten war.
Your argument screams in the face of reason and common sense, not to mention belittling the sacrifice of people who have died serving their country (which I know is unintentional).
Color me confused for why you felt the need to go all the way back to 1979 to make your argument. Recruiters are bringing in soldiers for current and future involvements. It would not be wise for a guy to sign up for the military based on “peacetime” fatality rates from twenty-five years ago. They’d be wise to look at what’s happening now. Now ain’t looking too good.
The Rice quote is not that big a deal. I only used it as an kicking off point (perhaps not the best one from the film) to argue about whether or not this film can really be considered a documentary. Yeah, there’s a continuum between documentary and political tract, but it doesn’t seem that Moore has made any conscious attempt to show both sides of the issue. I’m not saying that Moore HAS to do that, or even that his basic thesis (Iraq war = bad) is wrong. One can be 100% correct in one’s conclusion, but still use tenuous logic to explain how one got to that conclusion.
Hey, this is a film. It’s entertainment and it’s a politics. And yes, there is a continuum between strictly-fact-based-documentaries and political tracts. Let’s just not kid ourselves about where on the continuum this lies.
I saw this film, and it just looked largely like a clever re-hashing of a lot of conspiracy theory stuff that’s been floating around for quite some time. Moore makes it all entertaining, so to that extent, maybe he’s done his job. In the end, though, I think his blatant politicizing makes his film nothing more than a rah-rah session with the anti-war choir. I seriously doubt that many people not already against the war will see the movie and change their minds. AD is often identified as a conservative on this board, but he made his beliefs about the wrongness of the Iraq war very clear long before he saw the film.
I thought a far more powerful, and equally anti-Iraq war film was The Fog of War, which is just now out on DVD if you haven’t seen it. It’s nowhere near as “entertaining” as F-9/11, but I found it rivetting as an expose of how policy can go very, very wrong when we try to use military might to refashion the world into the way we think it ought to be.