Moore, unlike many here, gave a reference in his narration on the topic of the percentage of time Bush was vacationing. Here are the introductory paragraphs.
Clearly, though, if he were getting the job done, such a leisurely approach would be okay. However, I don’t know of any indicators of successful performance at the time, and his approval ratings were tanking as well. The big thing that he missed out on during his vacation appears to be the very thing that made his approval ratings shoot through the roof. Ironic.
I think I disagree, but since I have not seen the flick I cannot be sure. I suspect the comparison was to other presidential vacations, which I would believe would be as much a working vacation as W Bush’s. If the claim was simply that Bush vacationed more than other presidents, then that seems true enough.
I find this very weak. You aren’t actually considering the fact that they fought back while being chased out of Kuwait as counter-example, are you? Surely it’s clear to most that Moore meant an attack without provocation. As heinous as taking Kuwait was, and as justified as it was to force the Iraqis out, it’s silly to call it an attack against Americans when Americans attacked them first. The no-fly zone argument is better, but still not great. I would consider putting a no-fly zone in my country a provocation, wouldn’t you? You say yourself “that may not be the point Moore was trying to make”, so you kinda knew this already, right?
I agree pretty much with you here, in principle. I listened to “Dude Where’s My Country” in my car and rolled my eyes so much at Moore’s harping on Saudies causing 9/11 and Bush’s ties with the bin Laden family that I almost got into an accident.
But, if Moore is simply stating facts about the relationships that no one is disputing exist, then there’s no lie. Unless he makes some kind of accusation, and again I have not seen the flick so I can’t say if he has, he’s at worst misleading. And if the relationships are described accurately, you cannot even blame Moore if they look fishy.
Well, there are ways around this, as others have pointed out and even offered to help. And until you’ve seen the movie then you are essentially arguing from a point of ignorance. You ask others who have seen the film to refute Hutchens, yet you refuse to do so yourself. Do you not see how ridiculous that is?
And for every Hutchens there are a dozen glowing reviews of the film. Have you read those? If not, check out Yahoo!movies for a list of critics, or Rotten Tomatoes. If you’re really going to refuse to see the film, at least take your head out of the sand long enough to read another review…
Oh, and one more time for the deaf, dumb and blind: When you stir shit up about this film, you are adding to the “controversy”; controversy equals big bucks in the bank for Moore.
So while you may not “enrich this man with [your] money”, you are most certainly enriching him with your attempts to discredit him.
That was indeed a superb post, mhendo. Thorough, measured, fair, on point, articulate, incisive, smart and informed. Everything this board is about. Thank you for that.
No argument there. His tyranny is sufficient cause to criticize him. There’s no need to make stuff up. Moore’s remarks about percentage of time and so forth are just stupid. For example, 29% of the 42% of so-called vacation time is weekends. It’s just ridiculous. So far, Kerry has taken vacations in Sun Valley and Nantucket since his campaign started, and he’s not even president yet. Plus, those are infamous as retreats for the wealthy and famous, hardly the image he should be projecting to undecideds. And it kind of takes the sting out of all the Halliburton wealth connections about Bush.
I’m just saying that it’s a stupid thing to be fretting about. Bush has expanded the size and scope of the federal government. He has trampled our civil liberties. He has terrorized innocent citizens with an Attorney General who thinks the Statue of David is obscene. These are the things that Moore should pin on him. These are things that matter.
Just so. Given the “target rich environment” Mr. Moore has to work with, its does seem odd to waste ammo. For myself, I look forward to the day when GeeDubya can vacation 24/7/365. Can’t come soon enough.
For those of you who don’t want to pay to see the film: Eventually you will be able to check it out of your local library. Just remember, however, it goes into your file. :dubious:
My understanding is that when the film was made, Moore did not know who had authorized the flight(s). Clarke did not admit to it until the end of May. I don’t think that lets the Administration off the hook in any way. The family could have been secured here. How did the FBI determine so quickly that they didn’t need to be questioned? I’m wondering if Osama bin Laden knew they would be safe or did he just take his chances.
Accosts? He approached members of Congress about getting their own children to enlist to fight in Iraq. (Only one of 400+ members of the House has a child in Iraq.) Moore does indeed do a stop action shot with the Congressman giving him an incredulous look. It was absolutely done for effect – humor. I could understand the Representative complaining if he actually had a child that was shipping off to Iraq, but he didn’t. The scene wasn’t about nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers or sisters. It was about sending your own children into battle. There is an important difference.
But there is a question about whether or not Moore has been dishonest in this film. So far, I have not seen a good argument for anything that he has been dishonest about in F9/11. I see suggestions for how the movie could have been better. I see a lack on integrity on Hitchens part. Does this mean that I will never believe Hitchens again? No. It just means that I will examine carefully.
I don’t want to get too sidetracked by the vacations thing, since it really is just an effort to divert attention from the primary points of the film, and it isn’t that Moore spends much time at all on it. It is, however, consistent with Bush’s history of wandering from failure to failure and being bailed out of trouble, often by Saudi money. He is given the presidency, and treats it in a lackadaisical manner. The vacationing is not the primary problem, but an indicator of the larger problem. It also illustrates the way in which he was handing his efforts to combat terrorism.
But just to be clear, the article (and Moore by his citing of the article) isn’t counting all weekends, just weekend days that Bush was also at a vacation spot. If I book a 10 day vacation to the Bahamas, does that mean 10 working days? Are they going to throw in the weekends for free?
Claiming that Moore is making a big deal out of a minor issue (in an otherwise target rich environment) by focusing on the percentage of vacation days is disingenuous, since it is his critics that are making a big deal of it. Again, if Bush had been spending that time well, he wouldn’t have failed to talk to those involved in combatting terrorism. He would have hooked up with Tenet immediately.
In the movie, there is a clip of someone asking him about the perception that he is loafing at the ranch. To counter this charge, he says that Karen Hughes is going to come over, and proceeds to stammer and stutter, making it clear that he has no idea what he is going to be working on.
Reminds me of a Nixon era official, who name was…ahhhh…[This synapse is not available. Contact your neural network administrator…] Anyway…
He famously remarked something like “Steal once, nobody calls you “thief” for the rest of your life. Lie once, nobody calls you “liar” for the rest of your life. But suck just one cock…”
Yes, Zoe, I understand that. My comment that you quote was in regard to Michael Moore’s dishonesty and lack of personal integrity, not in regard to this specific film…however, as the great t.v. psychologist and all around manly man Dr. Phil says, “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior,” and it is this that makes me dubious about the integrity of this film.
And by the way, Zoe, since we have been bouncing around among numerous threads over considerable periods of time, I do want to make sure you know there are a couple of good things posted about you and to you in the now locked **Milum **clarification thread. Since I can’t reach you by email, I wanted to try to make you aware that you are appreciated. **Hentor **and myself, in this case, are the appreciators.
I come back upstairs after watching the Orioles lose yet another game, and there’s a bunch of nice compliments. Thanks for the kind words.
I certainly believe that reasonable people can disagree about many of Moore’s techniques and strategies. And i even have no trouble with the fact that, even after seeing the film, some people are going to disagree violently with my own interpretation, and that those same people might agree 100 percent with Christopher Hitchens. That’s their prerogative.
I also believe that even people who support Bush and hate Moore might, after seeing the film, agree that Hitchens misses the mark in so many places as to make much of his review worthless.
Finally, i also have no problem with someone deciding that they hate Michael Moore so much that they refuse to see this film. That’s completely unproblematic. I made a decision early on not to see The Passion, because i think Mel Gibson is an idiot, and, basically, i just wasn’t that interested. But, having made that decision, i also decided not to make an ass of myself on this message board by pretending to know something about a film that i had never seen, or simply posting links to people who supported my general view of Gibson.
Considering this article, I would like to know if Michael Moore is right. Are you guys in fact enormously ignorant, embarrassingly stupid, possible even the dumbest people on earth and in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [noses? pricks? assholes?]. Is Moore full of shit or is it true what he says, that Americans smile so much because they’re dumber than half-wit chicken?
finally seen [bFahrenheit 9/11,** I’ll simply say Hitchins is talking out of his ass.
And splitting hairs over whether or not the POTUS is ever truly “on vacation” is a sign of how desperate the Bush apologists are to discredit the movie; Moore himself only mentions it as a minor detail, a reminder that the guy retreated to Crawford when things were getting uncomfortable in the Summer of 2001. You could easily take all references to vacations out of the movie, and it would not lose one iota of its argument.
But hey, it’s easier to dismiss Moore for a trivial detail than to actually refute the points of the movie, ainnit?
I don’t disagree with your assessment of Mr. Hitchens. In fact, I think that it’s pretty spot-on. However, he’s never been a Clinton supporter, even before Clinton was elected (anyone remember Ricky Ray Rector?). He never supported him during “Monicagate,” and actually lost one of his long-time friends over it (Sydney Blumenthal and that pesky affidavit…)
Thank you very, very much for posting this wonderful indictment of Moore using his own words…words that I doubt even he would dare use here. Although the gist of his thinking is perfectly obvious, and I doubt anyone here would be surprised to learn he thinks this way. But it’s nice to learn of it through his own words, which removes the element of deniablilty for his supporters…and it’s good to learn also that he is vigorously evangelizing all over the world against the U.S. and it’s dumb-as-cattle people.
Moore is simply a big, fat, ugly slob who is trying to find some way to overcome the negative self-image he developed while growing up and being snubbed by pretty girls and athletic, popular boys. He feels he has at last found a perch upon which he can sit and look down upon everyone else, and he is eager in the extreme to do so. And of course, since he can’t proselytize how he really thinks so openly here, he chooses to do so by creating as much scorn and antagonism toward the U.S. and it’s people as he can elsewhere in the world.
