Which facts in Farenheit 9/11 do you dispute?

this is just the same standard response that would occur should limbaugh throw together a mockumentary of his own. i wouldn't expect anything less of an educated observer. what's the point of putting out such a movie if no one argues with it?

 

To argue honestly is one thing, however these sites such as bowlingfortruth and the host of right wing hyperbole that has hounded Moore's every move isnt interested in public discourse, it is interested only in quashing (as it has done since 911, all legitimate public scrutiny into the blatant lies and political contrivance of the administration.

You might recall for more than a year prior to the many revelations that have emerged, all those who opposed this administration and argued repeatedly that the nation was being purposely mislead to serve a corporate cronyistic imperialistic agenda of renewed global militancy and aggression were named "UnAmerican", "traitors", "lovers of terrorists", regardless of the fact that as we said, this PNAC agenda has done more to enhance the message of extremism than would have been the case with constructive engagement.

PB serves as a prime example of one who will jump on any bandwagon that tries to slur the character of anyone daring to call his beloved Republicans to account for glaring duplicity and corruption. Any halfwit could comb through any publication or movie and lift items out of the full context to insinuate claims which in fact are not made and subsequently miss entirely the message conveyed.

By doing so, they insulate themselves from any requirement to examine the full record and smugly maintain their state of denial. Until of course the other party wins and then of course theyll be turning over any rock they can find to attack the president. Such inconsistent application of principle shows them for what they are, hypocrits to the last (and more concerned with partisan loyalty than the betterment of the nation as a whole).

 

hardly unexpected, though. i would expect the exact same behavior from left winger's inresponse to a similar editorial film by any right-winger. it's not bandwagonism if it's that same nonsense just thrown right back.

 

Thing is kc, exposing duplicity in our elected leaders should be something championed by all political persuasions. Anyone with any real intellectual honesty would not call Moore's film "left wing", as it isn't. It is the effort (regardless of whatever ulterior motive Moore have have in his own mind) of an American citizen to honour his civic duty to wake an otherwise spin soaked misinformed nation (and i trust you will not contend that the vast majority glued to Fox News as a source of anything other than partisan indoctrination) to those truths the minority endured repeated character assassination to expose over and over to little avail for nearly three years running.

If another film maker regardless of political persuasion (and do note that Moore criticises Democrats and Republicans equally for poor governance) were to expose similar purposed duplicities in a Democratic admin I would applaud it just as much. To me, Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same corporately owned coin.

 

well sure, lick. but the ones who wish to point out inconvenient (or convenient, depending on your viewpoint) editing are merely bringing even more truth to the matter being presented. i root for the champions of truth just like any other sane person would. what i despise is being deliberately mislead by hollywood-style cutting room floor antics and convenient placement of quotes and statements out of context. i want to hear it all, not just the part that makes a particular statement or person look bad. i'm thrilled that politically-minded documentaries are recieving a great deal of attention, thank god, because if people get pissed off enough, they'll start paying attention. i think the negative attention that moore's films are receiving is just as valuable as any positive attention they may garner. i really enjoyed what someone here said "fuck michael moore, see the movie anyway." but dishonesty through omission (and editing) is still dishonesty.

 

Thats just it kc, these polemicists throw hyperbole and decontextualised claims at the unsuspecting partisans for them to gobble up so they can ignore what the film actually does claim. They bring no truth to the debate, only their own dishonest twisting to further reinforce their state of denial.

Hell, you have to finally admit that the evidence against this admin for outright betrayal of the nation for personal profit is incontrovertible when even the League of Conservative Voters (LCV) is on the warpath to remove Bush and his daddy's cronies from office.

http://www.lcv.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=2678&c=48

 

finishing the story is not dishonest twisting. and most of the people complaining about the film are people who've seen it and decided to do research. pointing out deliberately misleading info (even if moore did it for entertainment value) is not dishonesty.

and the league of conservative voters has more reasons than personal profit to kick gw out of office.

 

What you call "finishing the story" may (as with many of the rabid right wing claims of falsehood in BFC) an attempt to cite moore for a claim which the movie itself very likely does not make in conjunction with the footage used. I will at least have the integrity to reserve my full assessment on F911 until AFTER I have SEEN the movie myself, unlike the hordes of petty partisan bandwagoneers flooding the blogsphere.

As for the LCV, what motives do you suggest they have?

 

well, there's a few bits that i've seen, like the part where he's talking to some congressman and manages to insert "no member of congress is going to lose any of their kids to this war" when in fact the very congressman he was speaking to has a boy serving in the military, which he'd gone on to state but moore edited out. that kind of stuff really irks me. but i understand it's his editorial entertainment film, and i'm willing to see it as soon as it opens here.

as for reasons for ousting bush, it's pretty plain. providing funding to religious institutions for the so-called "faith based organizations" is extremely disturbing and clearly a violation of the separation of church and state. pre-emptive war in iraq, increasing spending to fight said war creating a temporary and instable, war-based economic "boom" and increasing the national debt. inacting the medicare prescription bill, so much more.

 

oh yeah, and let us not forget the freaking patriot act! patriot my ass...

 

...and the creation of the first cabinet level department since 1989, the farm bill, steel tariffs, unfunded mandates like "No Child Left Behind" etc. The list goes on.

It's been really interesting to see how this thread has developed. I think it is a real lesson in the the "tyranny of low expectations" concept, whereby Moore is held to such a low standard that it begins to reflect on his fans.

For example...

What does this remind me of? Ever seen Jack Handey's "Deep Thoughts" on Saturday Night Live?

Missing the point of the film means that when Moore says "Karzai worked for Unocal", since his informed and intelligent audience is fully aware of his comic-polemic technique, they understand that what he really meant was "Karzai DIDN'T work for Unocal"? This is the essence of the apologist - Moore's viewers are apparently so well informed that they understand that when Moore says the sky isn't blue, it is just a comic-polemic impression, and we can all be brothers.

Of course the other apologist technique is to attack the messenger and thereby divert the debate.

The topic of this thread is "Which facts in Farenheit 9/11 do you dispute? The first seven posts were Moore fans doubting that such legitimate disputes could exist. Then, when somone finally did, we get LickHERish saying "Then by all means do and with concrete substantiation to back up your counter argument."

But look what happens to those who dare take up that offer. Over seven pages into the thread, and he has not responded to a single documented error in Moore's film, but instead has filled page after page with pure vitriol, with this page alone including gems such as

So is there anyone here with the courage to respond to these documented errors in Moore's film, and is there anyone who isn't happy to be deliberately mislead by so-called "comic polemic technique"?

 

Yet the claim that Karzai DIDN'T work for Unocal IS the lie, PB.

http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/qfpip.html

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI211A.html

Further demonstration that youll believe whatever spin and whitewash the right wing would throw up when it has long been known that Karzai indeed worked as a Unocal consultant as did Khalilzad.

Perhaps it would behoove you to actually do some of YOUR own legitimate research and adopt some intellectual honesty for a change.

 

Here's a tip. Go to "User CP" and select "edit user signature". Put in the sort of boilerplate snide remark like the one above which you insist on tacking onto the end of every single post. By having it automaticallly appended, you would save a lot of time and could be a much more efficient troll.

And as it happens I came across the Le Monde inspired Karzai conspiracy theory at least a year ago, so it is with absolutely no surprise that I find you are part of the tinfoil hat brigade that passes it around.

The problem is that the Le Monde story made a passing reference to Karzai working for Unocal, without any sources or backup, and the story is no longer available on the Le Monde website. Since then, no other reputable news organisation has ever confirmed this story.

Typically conspiracy theorist chumps post multiple links which either refer right back to the Le Monde story or to internet editorial by random conspiracy theorists who simply state the Karzai worked for Unocal without any supporting evidence, leading one to believe that they are simply adding to the thousands of repetitions of the now legendary Le Monde article without actually saying so.

Meanwhile, Karzai has repeatedly denied he ever worked for Unocal and Unocal has stated unequivocally that Karzai never worked for them in any capacity. Given that it would seem pretty easy to prove them wrong, its hard to believe no one has done so yet.

So I am absolutely thrilled that you have finally calmed down and dropped the invective in order to try to stand up for Moore. It's just unfortunate that your first attempt has been so unsuccessful.

Maybe better luck with this one?

#11. Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” The audience laughs derisively.

LIE. What did Moore edit out? The full text: "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York." Oh but editing isn't lying, is it?

Before you simply dismissed all of this as "rabid right wing claims of falsehood". Maybe now you you are ready to explain what is "rabid" about pointing this out, and why you like being duped by Moore in this fashion?

 

Oh what a piece of work you are. Its a conspiracy theory when its in the foreign press, but youll accept the hyperbole of your preferred right wing lunatics despite their lack of any substantive backing proof for their claims.

You are a truly ignorant Bushbot through and through.

 

And no, the editing of a commentary which weaves and dodges to continue to insinuate the bogus and disproven link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is not a lie, the claim and the tenacious clinging by Rice and the rest of her ideological cohorts IS the lie, and one which shows just how desperate and incapable of admission of political malfeasance they truly are.

But of coure, despite their repeatedly exposed lies over the past 3 years you continue to prostrate your thought processes in slavish defference to THEIR bogus claims.

You are a used car salesman's dream. Oh "trust me" it was only driven by a little old lady on sundays. LOL.

You sir are the dupe as are all those of your willfully blind ilk.

 

Actually, given all the repeated exposure of just how readily Rice will repeat the mantras demanded of her by her Bush family task masters (those who indeed mentored her through her studies up to her installation as their intelligence mouthpiece), such a claim is merely another example of the sort of weaving and dodging (to maintain the quite debunked assertion of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda link) we have seen from the lot of them, even in the face of exposed politically inspired fraud.

You seem to be clueless to the fact that the bulk of the "intelligence" upon which this admin pursued its full intent for war at all costs with Iraq came from Chalabi and his INC cohorts.

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/4/mccollam-list.asp

With Saddam's longtime political opponents being the actual (and entirely noncredible) source for the justification handed to the US public (and summarily proven to be purely motivated by a will to power of their own), you are naive as hell to continue arguing against the revelations of duplicity on the part of this admin. You only show how easily spun you truly are.

 

i don't like bush, and wish for nothing more than to see the back of him leaving office. but that example that PB placed there does strike me a being a fully legit complaint. and a pretty good example of the kind of stuff i despise. give me the full quote, or give none of it. it's dishonest, whether you like the statement or not.

 

Three posts! Really got you knickers in a twist there, haven't you LickHERish? You don't hide your desperation very well.

What's interesting is that you found so very much to talk about - except whether or not the editing of Rice's quote is totally dishonest. So after all the blather dies away, we're forced to conclude that this is just another hasty attempt to step in and divert the debate away from another Moorish "comic-polemic" technique, and replace it with boilerplate vitriol.

I mean seriously, Condoleeza Rice saying "It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11" is, to you, "weaving and dodging to maintain the quite debunked assertion of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda link". There's a word for your logic. The word is stupid.

I feel like I am arguing with a small child who simply makes up complete nonsense as he goes along, and then screams at the top of his lungs when anyone points it out. How can you stand behind such hilariously self serving non-logic? Utterly juvenile.

I trust that after this little tantrum you will return to defending Moore and stop relying on obfuscation and grating tirades.

 

It is utterly astounding how evasive YOU are, in point of fact. You raise an issue about the EDITED portion of that quote as being the evidence of Moore's dishonesty (not the quoted portion which indeed supports his argument) and then have the gall to ignore your own argument in order to spin a fresh dodge for yourself rather than face the fact that YOU support repeatedly revealed liars of whom Rice has been an ever ready mouthpiece (as demonstrated by her irrelevant garabge about Iraq nonetheless being linked by some nebulous "atmosphere of hate"). The true hatemongers are those you serve like a good little sycophant.

You simply cannot adopt an ounce of intellectually honesty and simply admit you defend the indefensible.

Just keep regurtitating your shallow condemnations, they are indicative of the willful blindness that got our nation into the mess we are in today and which will help to maintain it for years to come. You aren't part of any solution, merely the problem.

You clearly never read any evidence provided either or you would understand how pointless further argument against Moore is in light of the noncredible source of all pre-war "intelligence" in the first place (demonstrating also that as with your claim that the Le Monde reference is "conspiracy theory", tis YOU who arduously continue to defend the real "conspiracy" of single source information, The INC). Duly revealed for the power grab it was intended to illicit, you and you ilk are left howling at the wind.

 

editting that quote like that is like me taping my best friend saying "i adore children!" and cutting out the part where she says "especially in aspic with little carrots." it's dishonest and totally changes the entire meaning of the quote.