One thing I have noticed about the critics of Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that they never answer the charges he makes in his movie.

Critics call him names, say the movie is nothing more than "propaganda", they say he has an axe to grind, and all sorts of things.

However, no one has taken the movie, point by point, and demonstrated where it it false.

I would expect that critics would at least do this so that we know they are above grammar school debate skills.

Or, is it possible, that the movie is indeed accurate??????

From what I have heard only.  I won't see his trash, I would rather have a ice pick stuck through my dick!

1.  Moore claims that President Bush arranged a special flight to get the bin laden family out of America.  The TRUTH is that former Terrorism Czar (and newest suck up of the left) Richard Clarke has stated that the decision was his and his alone, and the 9/11 Commission supports his claim!

2.  Moore claims that the only reason the US invaded Afghanistan was to build a pipeline.  As of today, the pipeline has still not been built, and there are no plans for building one.

Just two blatant lies, easily checkable.  What's so very interesting is that Moore has an even lower opinion of his leftist disciples than I seem to.  He was right about the Hollywood crowd, but then I don't think anybody holds them in high intellectual esteem.

Anybody who would believe this elephantine piece of shits tripe is a moron.  No doubt many will buy his unadulterated anti-American crap, including many on this board.

Here is what Moore said to the BBC while in England earlier this year; "American's are possibly the dumbest people on the planet!".  And to the German press; "Should such an ignorant people (Americans) lead the world?".  And per usual, many of you do not think he was referring to you!

so you lead with two inexactitudes from herr Moore.  And then you end with two truisms!  

The guy is flawed- no doubt.  More a gadfly then a leader.  But he is amusing and makes good points, although he often craps on them, by the time he's done pounding his opinion in your face.

Political entertainers often have these problems- see Rush, O'Reilly, Hanrahan (what is that guy's name?) and even Al Franken sometimes.

So in other words, you agree with me "again"?

While Moore's antics may be entertaining, they belong exactly just there - in the world of entertainment.  Twisting facts for the purpose of making a political point is something that turns me off, regardless of the part of the political spectrum that the fact twister comes from.  I would say the same thing if I saw a moderate purposely twisting facts (as opposed to accidentally doing so).

Although I wouldn't call it entertainment any more than have a root canal, more like propaganda!  A blow job, NOW THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!

Sully have a great weekend, I'm off to the desert to play some golf, got an invite to Ironwood from a rich capitalist friend of mine!  

I would have to put money in herr Moore's pocket...
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

find a way to get it out there without making people pay.
Otherwise Moore is just the capitalist pig he made his fame on ridiculing (kind of ironic, huh?)

Bribite, you happened to relay two LIES about what Moore actually said in the film.

Objection one:  Moore never said that Bush arranged flights after 9/11 for the Saudi nationals including the Bin Laden family in the film.  What he DID say was this:  Prince Bandar requested assistance in getting these Saudis out of the U.S., and the Bush ADMINISTRATION arranged them.  Both of those are actual facts.  Richard Clarke WAS part of the Bush Administration when he arranged those flights, and in fact, Bandar DID request the help - the film shows a clip from an interview of Bandar by Larry King in which he admits that he did request the help from his good friends the Bushes.

Objection two, the Pipeline:  In fact, at the end of 2002, a contract was signed between Afghanistan (our friend Karzai), Pakistan (and our friend Musharref), and Turkistan to develop a Natural Gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean, and Unocal was to be the general contractor.  Karzai had been a consultant on Unocal's payroll in the late '90s.  Yes, it's true that the plans for the pipeline are not complete, because, as you ought to know, these things take many years to engineer, and many more years to build, and the deal was inked just 18 months ago to begin the planning phase.

So, the fact is, you relayed two lies about Moore's film, and presented them as Moore's own inaccuracies, when in fact, the people who claimed Moore was lying were the one's who were lying.  This is why I made the point that unless you ACTUALLY have seen the film, your objections are baseless.  But, thanks for helping me so clearly to make my point that these objections are baseless if they come from someone who has not actually seen the film.

BTW, I saw the film last night, and frankly, I was a bit disappointed in it, because I DO feel that Moore was a bit heavy handed in making his case, in areas where the simple truth would have been more than sufficient to condemn the actions of the Bush administration, Moore goes out of his way to use camera tricks and editing to make them look even worse than they would if shot straight.  But, other than that use of the camera to exaggerate the malice of the Administration players which actually occurred, I did not see ANY outright false charges made in the film.

Those claims are never made in the movie.  YOu can see what was actually said at:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/

I am always interested in hearing both sides of the argument, I just don't want to pay for the "privilege"