Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11'

There have been around a quarter-zillion reviews and commentaries about Fahrenheit 9/11 so far, but all-too-few comprehensive critiques.

For what little my viewpoint is worth, I think Michael Moore is an agitprop genius, respect his approach and love watching his films even when he gets a tad reckless in interpreting some of the facts. As a gun-owner, I enjoyed Bowling for Columbine immensely, even in those instances when Moore was way off base factually. Likewise, with his latest film, whose greatest success - besides making Michael Eisner look like a fool - is to damage George W. Bush by putting him and his words on screen so much of the time.

Dave Kopel, research director at The Independence Institute, has a very different take. No surprise since the institute is a “market-oriented” organization funded in part by the rightwing Castle Rock Foundation, a creation of the Coors brewing dynasty based in Golden, Colorado. On July 1, Kopel published a critique called Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 Whatever else can be said of it, Kopel’s critique is hard-hitting and comprehensive.

On July 5, Kosopolitan Anton Sirius began debunking Kopel’s analysis in a series of his Diaries. He’s only finished 49 of Kopel’s 59, but even before his task is completed, I think Sirius’s prodigious efforts provide an excellent jumping off point for a real discussion of Moore’s film, as opposed to the undiluted adoration he’s received from some quarters and the excoriation he’s received elsewhere. Here are links to each of Sirius’s Diaries on the subject:

Debunking Deceits 1-2

Debunking Deceits 3-7

Debunking Deceits 8-16

Debunking Deceits 17-23

Debunking Deceits 24-31

Debunking Deceits 32-38

Debunking Deceits 39-49

•  I wonder

  Is there any actual evidence that voters who hear the election called for the other guy actually don't vote? That just seems completely against human nature. If I hear, say, an online poll that is about to close has 90% in favor of Bush and only 10% in favor of Kerry, my first reaction is to jump on over to the useless internet poll and vote as often as I can for Kerry.

  I call foul on that piece of conventional wisdom. I just don't believe it.

  by maurinsky on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 02:44:39 PM PDT

  •  What about the SD special election

    ISTR that Stephanie Herseth (D) had a sizable lead over Diederich (R) in the polls before the Repubs played the "concession"/"low expectations" card...the race ended up being a squeaker with Herseth barely winning.  I haven't analyzed that election in depth, so maybe I'm missing other factors, but it does seem like a shrewd strategy.  People are distressingly lazy sometimes, and if you convince them their votes are worthless by instilling a sense of complacency, apathy, or demoralization, then some fraction of them will probably stay home.

    by turbonium on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:31:17 PM PDT

  •  its real alright

    Theres a difference between in internet poll and a real vote.

    A mouse click from your home is very different from the effort it takes to get to your polling place, wait in line, vote, etc.

    Many people will see "called" elections as saving them the trouble of getting up from the couch.

    Tis' human nature.

    by skallas on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:17:41 PM PDT

    •  Right...

      But that would affect each side equally.

      by engray on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:46:22 PM PDT

  •  But

    wouldn't Democrats in that case be as likely as Republicans to decided their vote is not needed? I think a "what's the point of me voting, we won already" is as valid as "what's the point of me voting, we lost already".

    So while it may keep people from voting, it affects both sides.

    by VictorNJ on Mon Jul 19, 2004 at 07:43:14 AM PDT

•  asdf

  these "deceits" i've read so far are really
  lame.  not the rebuttals mind you....just these
  so called "deceits."

  if this is the best they can do then i think it
  just shows how well this movie was fact-checked
  beforehand.

  *****

  as an aside, I don't believe the reason for going
  into Afghanistan had anything to do with the
  pipeline...certainly a wonderful side-benefit for
  some.... but whatever...
  

  by JoelK in AZ on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 02:49:14 PM PDT

  •  Unocal

    pipeline ...

    I always took the inclusion of that part of the story was more about how oil considerations limited the focus of BushCO prior to 9/11 ... negotiating w/ the Taliban instead of trying to force them to hand over al Queda members.

    Even after the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, they seemed very happy to just settle for installing a puppet Government in Kabul, rather than stabilizing the whole country.

    by Madman in the marketplace on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:02:33 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      yeah...

      I've been wondering about these upcoming
      Afgan elections... are they voting all over
      the country or just in Kabul?  How are these
      elections squaring with the clan control of
      the places outside Kabul?

      anyone know?
      

      by JoelK in AZ on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:17:26 PM PDT

      •  All over the country

        They are having a hard time registering voters in So. Afghanistan.  So far, last I read they had only registered about 30% of eligible voters, and were way low on women.

        by Unstable Isotope on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:39:32 PM PDT

•  Facts are meaningless now

  ...respect his approach and love watching his films even when he gets a tad reckless in interpreting some of the facts.

  I think statements like this, regardless of intent, are a fallacy and only perpetuate the idea that Moore is obliged to be objective.  His movies, especially F911, are satire.  

  I would argue that his movie is not actually a documentary, but considering the Fox labels themselves as objective journalists... fair play is no longer part of the rules.  Repubs have redifined half the dictionary however it suits them, so long as we continue to play fair, we'll lose.
  

  by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:09:36 PM PDT

  •  Not mutually exclusive

    I would argue that his movie is not actually a documentary

    I would argue it is a documentary (the Academy would agree), as well as satire.

    by NTodd on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:14:20 PM PDT

    •  It's not objective

      F911 is at least as subjective as the mainstream media, probably more so.

      Merriam-Webster Dictionary even added a new term to account for the todays media:

      New Journalism
      : journalism that features the author's subjective responses to people and events and that often includes fictional elements meant to illuminate and dramatize those responses

      Sounds similar to F911.  Neither can be called objective.

      by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:27:49 PM PDT

      •  So what?

        It's not objective

        A documentary is not, by definition, objective.  It merely 'documents' something, all through the filter of the person making it.

        by NTodd on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:15:52 PM PDT

        •  Exactly

          like the media doesn't show the "American" point of view.

          by Unstable Isotope on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:40:39 PM PDT

        •  Yes, but

          That depends on which definition you use.

          For example, Dictionary.com defines documentary as:
             1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
             2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

          But I don't think it really matters.  Our language hasn't kept up with nuance.  Not to sound flip-floppish, but I agree that it is a documentary, but only in as much as today's media is journalism.  

          But the original point here is that if Liberals continue to admit that Moore is loose with the facts they are allowing Repubs to frame the debate in terms that keeps us on the defensive and where we ultimately can't win.  Of course Moore is loose with the facts, so is Fox.  
          

          by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:43:14 PM PDT

          •  2 kinds ...

            I think there are two main types of documentaries.

            1.  Those that present the facts in an objective way, without passing judgement (the objective lens type of documentary), and allowing the viewer to make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions.
            2.  Those that presnt an opinion and back it up by facts, in a similar fashion that a prosecuter would present a case to a jury.  This alows let the viewer decide for themselves if they agree or disagree with the point of view of the creator.

            Moore obviously released a documentary of the 2nd type.  I don't think this second type is deceitful or dishonest.  It's not as if he's making things up.  He just presents things in a way that supports his premise. There may be some sensationalism, but then again who doesn't to a certain extent. It's not enough to make him lose credebility to someone who is unbiased going into the movie.
            

            by avagias on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 09:07:25 PM PDT

      •  New Journalism not so new

        this might be a nitpick, but the OED offers this for "New Journalism"

        n. New Journalism (freq. with the), a style of journalism that developed in the U.S. during the 1960s, characterized by the use of subjective and fictional elements; also used earlier in a more general sense.
        

        New Journalism came about with Tom Wolfe and Joan Didion, then got launched into some kind of stratosphere with Hunter S. Thompson. There's a great quote in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail about objectivity in journalism, suggesting, as any student of literature would guess, that it simply cannot exist.

        Anyway, there's a stub in Wikipedia, too.

        Moore's slipshod relation to the facts gives him a credibility problem. People who frequent dKos already understand that there's an equal/greater credibility problem with the SCLM, but if someone does not see that, then when the SCLM talks about Moore's credibility problem, you end up with half the story and hate the wrong person.

        I think Franken takes this up in Lies: he suggests that his book was thoroughly fact-checked--in comparison to, say, Coulter's work. Part of this was, from my understanding, because Franken understood that, when held to a higher standard like the left is, he has to hit everything square. Coulter can suffer the accusations of bad facts--the SCLM will let her slide. But Franken knows that he has no similar friends in there. Hence, he has to make sure it's all dead on.

        This all said, Fahrenheit 9/11 was pleasant largely because Moore managed to present everything so straight--though I still could have handled less snark (starting the flick with a dud of a joke about who makes up Moore's dreamscape, for example, annoyed me). Maybe I just don't like jokes.

        by Moacir on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:17:11 PM PDT

        •  A higher standard

          It's quite a predicament we're in, being at a disadvantage for having a higher standard.  It makes me think the Repubs withhold from funding education in order to maintain the advantage.

          The notion that journalism is inherently not objective is interesting.  Perhaps we should aim for polarity in the media rather than waiting for them to be more objective.  I'm certain a liberal leaning establishment, drawing from a larger base of creative talent, could compete with Fox and do quite well.  Air America is off to a good start, it would be nice to have something on TV -- we certainly have a lot of catching up to do.

          by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 06:07:39 PM PDT

          •  re:liberal leaning establishment

            I'm certain a liberal leaning establishment, drawing from a larger base of creative talent, could compete with Fox and do quite well.  Air America is off to a good start, it would be nice to have something on TV

            hmm. how about a cable news channel that's basically the daily show 24/7?  laugh 'em out of town! the slant could be something like completely subjective newsertainment... but at least we're honest about it!  apparently lots of people - especially younger viewers - get all their news from satire sources like TDS, so there could be a big market for it.  and having a sense of humor about it is probably the only way liberals could work for something obviously biased like an anti-fox.

            we're rolling back the republican crime wave

            by zeke L on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 08:14:22 PM PDT

            •  re: re:

              You're absolutely right.  How often I wish TDS was longer and more frequent.  And perhaps it would draw mom and pop types if it were on during typical news hours.

              by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 09:34:03 PM PDT

  •  I could agree with you, except ...

    ...that Michael Moore himself has made a very big deal about the fact-checking he did. Indeed, he's threatened - without his usual smile - legal action against those who accuse him of factual errors in F 9/11.

    "Grab whom you must. Do what you want."

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:24:10 PM PDT

    •  Not my point

      I'm not saying there are any factual errors.  I believe there are not.  The piont is that facts don't really matter.  

      F911 attacks Bush's character more than anything.  Facts are not needed to portray to people for who they are.  As you say yourself, the movie is most effictive because Bush is the main actor.  This whole charade about facts is just an effort to discredit the film, when in reality most people probably don't walk away thinking about facts.  They're left with the impression that Bush is not a leader and this war is not worth the cost.

      Liberals that perpetuate the notion that Moore is loose with the facts is not helpful to our cause.  It's not about the facts.

      by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:43:28 PM PDT

      •  um...

        How do you portray someone as they are without using facts?  If the portrayal isn't factual, it isn't true or accurate.

        by kevincovey on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:43:44 PM PDT

        •  It's the delivery not the words

          Moore uses some nifty editing to emphasize Bush's true character.  For example, in the scenes of my pet goat and his announcement of the war, Moore slows down the footage thereby placing emphasis on Bush's insecurities.  These qualities are often missed in real-time, but ever so important.

          If we debate the merit of the film only on facts it's easily for the Repubs to claim that certain facts are left out, or that scenes are taken out of context.  Consider the "haves and have mores" clip.  Repubs claim that it was said at an event that is supposed to be funny.  Both claims are factual.  The Problem is that that sort of humor is disturbing to the "have nots".  

          by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:20:28 PM PDT

      •  I'm sorry but this line ...

        ... The p[oi]nt is that facts don't really matter is just too Orwellian, too Rovian, too Limbaughian for my taste. That's more or less the argument Richard Perle and Ahmed Chalabi made about WMDs after the fact.

        I agree with you that Moore is an effective satirist who kick-punches his opponents in the most delightful way. The are-you-kidding look from the Congressman who is asked if he'd send his kid to fight in Iraq is worth the whole of F-9/11. If the only issue here was whether Moore is a great satirist who knows how to deflate the powers that be, then you'd get no argument from me.

        But this idea that Moore's presentation of the facts doesn't matter is bogus. They don't matter to those of us in the echo chamber, for sure. But so much of the praise at dKos for the movie has been built around the justifiable notion that it can be a helpful addition to our arsenal for defeating Bush in November. Since swing voters are the key target, and they could go either direction, it's important for us to be able to answer critics who claim Moore interpreted some facts inaccurately.

        If some swing voter at your workplace points out an alleged inaccuracy, and the only response you can make is: it's not about facts, the movie was merely satire - what effect do you think that argument will have on that voter's ballot box behavior?

        "Grab whom you must. Do what you want."

        by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:56:15 PM PDT

        •  I'm not always articulate in making a point

          But this idea that Moore's presentation of the facts doesn't matter is bogus.

          The Repubs want the debate to be about facts, because is distracts from debate about Bush.  I'm not saying we should concede any factual errors, there are none.  It was you who claimed he was a tad reckless in interpreting some of the facts.  Do you ever see many conservatives admitting that Fox is reckless in interpreting facts.  Noway.  I understand we're talking on a liberal blog and it doesn't really matter, but when talking with conservative friends I don't think we should concede so much.  We should answer critics assertions without compromise, but quickly shift the conversation to Bush.  The more time spent on debating the facts, the less time afforded to focus on Bush's incompetence.  "Why didn't Bush take action after learning of planes crashing into the tower?", "Isn't there a conflict of interest with Bush the presnit and his relationship to Saudis?", "Why aren't we seeing this war footage on the news?", etc, etc.

          by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:43:41 PM PDT

          •  I certainly don't disagree with you ...

            ...about being uncompromising when talking with conservatives about Bush. I think we need a more careful approach when discussing matters with swing voters.

            "Grab whom you must. Do what you want."

            by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:55:45 PM PDT

            •  swing voters`

              when I've talked this over w/ swing people, or even moderate conservatives, I concede that the facts were chosen based on the points that Moore was trying to make. I then ask "don't you do the same thing when you're at work pushing a project?"
              That usually puts it in perspective for them.

              by Madman in the marketplace on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 06:37:35 PM PDT

          •  I agree

            getting the facts right is important (and so far Moore is surviving that test), but when talking about the movie we should have this in mind: It's about Bush, stupid.

            by VictorNJ on Mon Jul 19, 2004 at 07:51:05 AM PDT

    •  Indeed

      Here's an excerpt from his recent interview in Entertainment Wkly:

      And I also went and hired the former chief counsel and head of fact-checking at The New Yorker and then she brought in some fact-checkers. I said tear the movie apart and find something wrong with it. I've done this for my other movies, too. I've had virtually no lawsuits. Four books, not one lawsuit. ''Awful Truth,'' two seasons, zero lawsuits. ''TV Nation''? Two seasons, one lawsuit, we won it. ''Bowling for Columbine,'' no lawsuits until the Oklahoma City bombers' brother sued us -- remember when we go into the bedroom and the gun is under the pillow? A privacy thing. ''The Big One,'' no lawsuits.

      by bunny on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:06:44 PM PDT

      •  aoeu

        Canadian Bacon:  no lawsuits!

        by TealVeal on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:22:34 PM PDT

        •  That was

          a funny movie!  Definitely worth a look now.

          by Unstable Isotope on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:41:48 PM PDT

    •  Actually...

      Moore's invited those who accuse him of factual errors to sue him for libel. He claims that he has more than enough documents to back up every single one of his claims.

      Nice try, though.

      by RHunter on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:43:39 PM PDT

      •  Michael Moore told the New York Times ...

        "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force.  ...The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

        Nice try, though.

        "Grab whom you must. Do what you want."

        by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 06:03:00 PM PDT

  •  Wrong.

    There is absolutely no requirement that a documentary be objective. Take a look at some of the definitions of documentaries from actual film school texts, as diaried by skippy:

    the people and events on a documentary are real, i.e. the characters portray themselves (or tell about themselves) in events that are happening or have happened. yet all films are more or less fiction, pieces of composition, and their author's interpretation of the reality.

     a documentary film is not the truth and it should not even aim to the one and only truth. rather, it should open possibilities for interpretation and viewpoints to the period that it is depicting.

    There's more at the link.

    by hamletta on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:57:05 PM PDT

    •  I'm not really disagreeing here

      There are definitions (I quoted one above) that say a documentary is supposed to be objective.  The reality is there isn't unique words to describe one that is and one that isn't, so both instances pass as documentary.

      The point here is that F911 is not objective.  So this notion of 59 deceits of F911 is itself deceitful.  Most of these deceits (and other critics as well) consist of claims that certain facts were left out or taken out of context.  Well no shit!  It's not supposed to be objective.  We take away much of their ammo away if make clear that the film is not supposed to be objective.
      

      by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 06:43:49 PM PDT

•  This is much harder for us

  than them, because we worry about these pesky things called facts.

  by jfern on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:10:49 PM PDT

•  It just broke $100 million

  for worldwide gross
  http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fahrenheit911.htm

  by jfern on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:16:10 PM PDT

  •  $93.7 million

    domestic gross, according to CNN.com.  It's now the all-time documentary champion, beating the IMAX Everest.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:43:06 PM PDT

    •  aoeu

      It looks like it might beat Pulp Fiction( $107,928,762 Domestic), the only other Palme D'Or winner still above it.

      It ain't besting Air Force One however.

      by TealVeal on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:45:28 PM PDT

    •  5% of US population has seen it

      If 15  million have seen it, more or less, based on a ticket being $7-8, (does someone have actual tickets sold number?), more than 5 percent (one in twenty) of Americans have watched  F-911. Could one make an assumption, or maybe it's just a speculation, that the folks who go see this would be very likely to be voters? 15 million voters is a much bigger chunk of the pie than 5% of US pop.  How many more folks will be likely to have seen it in the next 120 days?  

      Anybody seen any numbers on how many people have been registered to vote at F-911 showings? Some enterprising folks are setting up tables outside the theatres, which is so  right on.  

      by claude on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:48:07 PM PDT

•  The Magic of the Marketplace

  As a shill for "a 'market-oriented' organization funded in part by the rightwing Castle Rock Foundation, a creation of the Coors brewing dynasty," I'm sure Mr. Kopel would agree: you can't argue with success!

  Eat shit, brownshirts. See you at the Oscars for the official "Tipsy" Farewell Party!

  by dave on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 03:40:50 PM PDT

•  Where's PNAC?

  A criticism I share with the antiwar.com writers re F9-11 is how Moore concentrates on the house of Bush, house of Saud connections, which are somewhat murky and filled with mixed motives. And the Bush/Saud connection doesn't represent too radical a break with 70 years of US policy in that nation.

  Yet the movie studiously avoids discussion of the PNAC influence when these radical imperialists, Likud hawks all, have had a clear cause-and-effect influence on Bu'ushist policy.

  I was wondering if Moore chose this route because he didn't want to be harried with charges of anti-Semitism from thin-skinned US zionists. If so, it's hard to blame him exactly--he has enough undeserved vitriol coming his way as it is. But it also means that serious discussion of the US's ruinous alliance with Israel is postponed for another day, which may come too late (if it's not already).

  I haven't followed the Moore interviews very closely; has he been asked about the absence of PNAC in his movie?  

  by Draco on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:01:13 PM PDT

  •  The Jewish vote

    Because his objective is to get Bush out of office.  If he included PNAC he'd have upset much of the Jewish vote (for Kerry) -- this is especially bad in Florida.

    by dash on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:10:22 PM PDT

  •  You can't talk about PNAC ...

    ...without at least mentioning Israel at some point. And I am having a hard time remembering how many times Israel was ever mentioned in F911. Probably  no more than once - it was certainly never discussed in any real context.

    by maxentropy on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:02:46 PM PDT

•  Facts & Context

  ... even when he gets a tad reckless in interpreting some of the facts

  Moore slants the context in which he presents the facts, not as much w/ the facts themselves.

  When I was unemployed, I watched a lot of daytime tv after spending the morning surfing job sites, mailing resumes and such. I stumbled across a Jay Leno interview on The View {embarrassed grin}. He showed a bunch of clips where he asked people on the street a bunch of basic facts, which they get wrong. One of the women asked him, "Are Americans dumber than they were 30 years ago?"

  Leno replied (paraphrasing from memory), "I don't think so. When I was a kid,
  Cronkite would give the news, the Eric Severeid would give a commentary at the end to provide context for the news you just heard. All we 'learn' now is a bunch of facts. They don't stick, because we don't know what they're related to." He then went on to describe how no one knew what Ken Starr's job was, but they could all remember that he was the guy carrying the big coffee cup into the hearings, b/c that was a picture that was shown over and over again. It stuck in my mind, because Leno usually never says anything remotely insightful.

  Moore has provided some fresh context for the events of the last several years. Notice that most of the attacks on him point out what he left out about an event or a quote that he uses. That is, the context. This is a suprise to the non-political-junkies he's targeting, because all they usually here is the warbling of the Mighty Wurlitzer. That's why the media is so pissed too: he's shown that there are other ways to order the world than the image they've been shoveling out. Same reason they discount the blogosphere ...

  by Madman in the marketplace on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:21:39 PM PDT

  •  Agreed. (eom)

    "Grab whom you must. Do what you want."

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:51:22 PM PDT

•  Can You Imagine...

  ...If all the people so busy tearing F911 down had done half as much work researching Bush's Claims about WMD's?? Or any of the crimes committed in the Bush regime?  I swear, it's like we've got permanent seats at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, priorities are so screwed up...

  by Jank2112 on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:38:07 PM PDT

  •  Or...

    Or take any two hours at random from any of the cable news networks, and give them the same treatment--ouch. Including the commercials--double ouch.

    by Draco on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:28:00 PM PDT

    •  FOX

      Or take any two hours at random from any of the cable news networks, and give them the same treatment--ouch.

      It's called "Outfoxed". :)

      by DavidNYC on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 06:55:43 PM PDT

•  Splitting hairs

  I find it stunning that Kopel goes to such a great effort to expose Moore's "deceits" while completely ignoring the larger, more salient questions raised in F911. I still have not seen a single in-depth investigative piece that explores any if this on TV. If I were in charge of a news desk at a major cable network I'd probably hand out a few assignments that take a close look at such questions as, oh, I don't know:

  • Why the hell has the Saudi government gotten so much preferential treatment when 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001 were from their country?
  • What the hell is the Carlyle Group and why are members of the highest levels of our government doing in it? Is that, or is it not, of any interest?
  • Why the hell do Saudi's control 6-7% of our economy and what are the implications?
  • What the hell was the relationship between the Taliban and Unocal executives while Bush was governor of Texas?
  • Why the hell,  just five and a half months before 9/11, the Bush administration welcomed a special Taliban envoy to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban government. This might be a big story because at that time the Taliban were harboring the al Queda member who bombed the USS Cole and our African embassies.
  • Why the hell did we spend 7 years and $70 million dollars investigating a 20-year-old land deal that Clinton was involved in before he was Governor of Arkansas, but there's no investigation of the relationship between James Bath, the bin Laden family and George W. Bush's business anywhere to be found?

  There are so many other huge stories in F911 it is breathtaking that so much effort is being spent splitting hairs over things like context and style to try and discredit this film, while no major market media (that I've seen) has taken the time to explain any of this to the public.
  

  by Rp on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:10:16 PM PDT

•  Thanks

  for putting this set of diaries on the main page...right on.

  Here's the thing about F9/11, as John Kerry said, we already saw the movie...we lived it. It's not a documentary about the secret life or birds, or spelling bees, or an arcane environmental issue:  it's about TV, politics and the daily life of the nation under George Bush.  And as Madman in Marketplace so rightly put it above, it's a polemical reordering of the context of that experience through the eyes of Michael Moore.

  The real power of the movie (all movies for that matter) is what it shows.  And as MB puts it, F9/11 shows a hell of alot of George Bush from the point of view of someone who doesn't trust him.  You cannot leave this movie without forming a powerful new impression of the man.  And it's disturbing. The most powerful impressions, of course, are the least remarked upon and least vulnerable to David Kopel's counterspin:  the footage from Iraq, the recruiters and the Lila Lipscomb family.

  Having caught Dr. Ben Wattenberg once or twice on Iraq...and knowing how the right wing just ran with the meme that no one ever shows you the "children we help and the schools we build."  I find it hard to believe that anyone SEEING F9/11 would take solace in that crap. At the end of the day, no one ever showed us the children we killed and mauled and maimed either.  Or the soldiers wounded in Iraq and the families who paid the ultimate price.  Whatever the critique of the "context," Michael Moore is the one who brought these images to the American public.  Hat's off to Anton Sirius for sticking up for him.

  by kid oakland on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 05:22:56 PM PDT

  •  Schools, happy children

    knowing how the right wing just ran with the meme that no one ever shows you the "children we help and the schools we build."

    I heard a sick twist on this meme in one of the many hit pieces on F9/11 (I don't remember which one ... there's been so many). This one complained that more showed children playing in a nice neighborhood of Bagdad before the bombing, followed by the child's corpse scene later. "Why doesn't he show the mass graves?", the author whines.

    Destroy the village to save it, in other words.

    by Madman in the marketplace on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 06:26:14 PM PDT

    •  oops

      MOORE showed ...

      and

      WE destroyed the village in order to save it.

      previewisyourfriendpreviewisyourfriend

      by Madman in the marketplace on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 06:42:17 PM PDT

•  Can I just say...

  You go, Anton!  TOTAL props to you.  I've got so much respect for you and everybody else who works so hard to fight the shitstream coming from the Bush admin and their apologists.  You kick ass, bro.  

  by tfiblog on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 06:17:45 PM PDT

•  Why Moore instead of Bush?

  In the film Moore made this point: "Imagine if we learned that Bill Clinton had flown the relatives of Timothy McVeigh out of the country in the days following the Oklahoma City bombing."  What more needs to be said?

  This is how good "they" are -- we're talking about Moore, instead of Bush's flying bin Laden's family out of the country.  What else needs to be said?

  WHY is anyone spending any energy at all debunking something from a Coor/Scaife-funded site?  Why are't we awake enough to just dismiss what they say because THEY JUST LIE?

  by davej on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 06:32:54 PM PDT

  •  I Agree A Great Deal, But

    unfortunately, we are STILL in the world where the SCLM rules. We cant completely control the debate here, but Im CHARGED that Michael Moore has forced our way up to the table for once. I would LOVE to just be able to say, "This is BS," but it isnt so simple with Americans who arent paying as much attention as us bloggers. Hell, when I first read the "Deceits," some of the points made ME wonder.

    Now, what Anton Sirius and others here are doing is giving us a QUICK, FACTUAL way to redirect the focus onto Bush and his failures. We cant make people stop questioning Moore, but we can hurry them past this stop-off point and into the REAL meat of the problems surrounding Sept. 11.

    The Right ARE good at steering conversation, theyre better than we are 'cause we actually TRY to be sensible. Having this info put together like this gives us a concise way of staying true to ourselves (being truthful) and of holding Bush's heels to the flames where they NEED to be held.

    by RNinNC on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 07:23:52 PM PDT

  •  Tell them you were bored

    I tell my right leaning friends this about Moore's film, (sucks 'em in and leaves 'em speachless.)

    "Aw, I liked it, I'm the audience of course, but it was actually kind of dull cause I already knew 95% percent of the stuff in the film.  No real surprises."

    by David in Burbank on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 08:29:35 PM PDT

•  I am Satisfied

  That whatever spin Moore used in presenting his facts is so hard for the Anti-Moore people to explain that the idea that Moore has actually lied has never stuck (because he didn't, of course, but more because his presentation is too hard to unravel - even a veteran nut like Novak finds it hard not to sound like a wishy-washy whiner when trying to pan Moore's movie - can't call him a lier 'cause that would be slander and I expect Moore has his legal team ready - and I expect Novak knows it (no protected speach like with Valerie Plame.))

  by David in Burbank on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 08:20:49 PM PDT

•  Kind of interesting to see what *isn't* contested

  Considering that this guy obsessively went after any possible error, it's worth considering some of the things that weren't challenged. For instance, one of the most powerful scenes in the film for me: the recruiting agents scouring the mall for more soldiers. A remarkable scene with truly disturbing implications. Unless I missed something, nothing about this is disputed by Kopel.

  by awol on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 08:24:56 PM PDT

•  As a gun owner,

  can you tell us how Moore was off-base factually in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE? I've heard this before, but specifics are never given.

  BTW, all this stuff about is it or isn't it a documentary; how many documentaries about the Holocaust have you seen? Ever see any that present the side of the Nazis?

  by LAS on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 08:48:37 PM PDT

  •  I think quite a number of ...

    ...Holocaust documentaries present the side of the Nazis; they just don't take the side of the Nazis.

    As for Bowling for Columbine, specifics about errors are often given. But, for example, in an animated sequence, Moore makes it appear that the NRA and the Klan were closely linked, claiming that the NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." The animation then shows Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.

    I have not been an NRA member since it decided to fight a ban on Teflon-coated, body-armor piercing bullets. However, this scene attempting to equate the founders of the NRA with the founders of the Klan is worse than false, it maligns the founders of the NRA who were in fact former officers of the Union Army.

    The NRA was founded in 1871, but the terrorist Klan was founded in 1866. In 1871, the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act was passed. Ulysses S. Grant used the act to suspend habeas corpus and deploy troops. More than 5,000 Klansmen were arrested under his leadership. He became the NRA's president after his term as U.S. president.

    The NRA was, in fact, a strong enemy of the Klan.

    As I noted, I liked the movie, just as I like all of Moore's movies. But, I wish he weren't so reckless with the facts, a charge that has dogged him ever since his short-lived term as editor in chief at Mother Jones, where other editors decided he was hurting the publication's reputation as an investigative magazine.
    

    "Grab whom you must. Do what you want."

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 11:05:02 PM PDT

•  Any sign of 50-59

  To close it out...?

  Mitch Gore

  Wanna win in '08...?

  Put your money where your mouth is.

  by Lestatdelc on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 10:44:11 PM PDT

•  Status Update

  I'm caught up on all the 'real world' stuff that piled up while I was away... the final installment (or two) should be done tonight.

  by Anton Sirius on Mon Jul 19, 2004 at 10:11:18 AM PDT

•  Hey

  You almost done???

  by finebyme on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 09:51:43 AM PDT

•  Nice

  More good knowledge to know.

  by dopies on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:31:52 PM PDT