I can't believe that I am really doing this, as I disagree with him far more often than I agree with him, but I found some interesting points in this e-mail I received. I especially liked the "contractor" comment:


Heads Up
April 14, 2004

Friends,

I have never seen a head so far up a Presidential ass (pardon my Falluja) than the one I saw last night at the "news conference" given by George W. Bush. He's still talking about finding "weapons of mass destruction" -- this time on Saddam's "turkey farm." Turkey indeed. Clearly the White House believes there are enough idiots in the 17 swing states who will buy this. I think they are in for a rude awakening.

I've been holed up for weeks in the editing room finishing my film ("Fahrenheit 911"). That's why you haven't heard from me lately. But after last night's Lyndon Johnson impersonation from the East Room -- essentially promising to send even more troops into the Iraq sinkhole -- I had to write you all a note.

First, can we stop the Orwellian language and start using the proper names for things? Those are not “contractors” in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE. They are there for the money, and the money is very good if you live long enough to spend it.

Halliburton is not a "company" doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested -- or worse.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?

One year after we wiped the face of the Saddam statue with our American flag before yanking him down, it is now too dangerous for a single media person to go to that square in Baghdad and file a report on the wonderful one-year anniversary celebration. Of course, there is no celebration, and those brave blow-dried "embeds" can't even leave the safety of the fort in downtown Baghdad. They never actually SEE what is taking place across Iraq (most of the pictures we see on TV are shot by Arab media and some Europeans). When you watch a report "from Iraq" what you are getting is the press release handed out by the U.S. occupation force and repeated to you as "news."

I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to the Army). They are talking to soldiers and gathering the true sentiment about what is really going on. They Fed Ex the footage back to me each week. That's right, Fed Ex. Who said we haven't brought freedom to Iraq! The funniest story my guys tell me is how when they fly into Baghdad, they don't have to show a passport or go through immigration. Why not? Because they have not traveled from a foreign country -- they're coming from America TO America, a place that is ours, a new American territory called Iraq.

There is a lot of talk amongst Bush's opponents that we should turn this war over to the United Nations. Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.

Until then, enjoy the "pacification" of Falluja, the "containment" of Sadr City, and the next Tet Offensive – oops, I mean, "terrorist attack by a small group of Baathist loyalists" (Hahaha! I love writing those words, Baathist loyalists, it makes me sound so Peter Jennings!) -- followed by a "news conference" where we will be told that we must "stay the course" because we are "winning the hearts and minds of the people."

I'll write again soon. Don't despair. Remember, the American people are not that stupid. Sure, we can be frightened into a war, but we always come around sooner or later -- and the one way this is NOT like Vietnam is that it hasn't taken the public four long years to figure out they were lied to.

Now if Bush would just quit speaking in public and giving me more free material for my movie, I can get back to work and get it done. I've got four weeks left 'til completion.

Yours,

Michael Moore

mmflint@aol.com

www.michaelmoore.com (http://www.michaelmoore.com)

I really liked that. I've been a big fan of michael moore for the past few years. I found that I agree with his viewpoint more often than not. Sorry DMC. I like the way he can put across a serious issue, with enough wit to keep people intereted in the subject. This E-mail is another example of how astute he can be. Bravo!

I can only admire the man and that he manages to stay true to his convictions despite the overwhelming hate mail and death threats he must be getting every day from the war supporters.

So much frustration, anger, spite, despair - and all of it masked with sarcasm. I know how Mr. Moore feels.
If things get too absurd and tragic, all one can do is laugh about it and ridicule.

Thanks for that, dmc.

Seems that even Disney (a big supporter of the Democratic Party) has decided that its subsidiary Miramax will not be distributing the film that MM mentions in his message that DMC was so kind to provide to us.

I guess even Disney has a limit as to how much extreme left-wing propaganda it will support. :rolleyes:
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?ei=5006&en=89982416bdce50c0&ex=1084334400&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=)

Don't worry though, someone else will pick up the film and distribute it, it just means less money into MM and the DNC's pocket.

Disney? Left Winged? Yeah right, they provide more right-winged propaganda than the Swedish goverment, and that's a LOT.

Whether you agree with Michael Moore or his politics, I think it is a real shame when a company decides to censor someone. It shows that Disney is afraid that people are unable to make their own minds up. I believe that people should have the right to judge it for themselves. If you agree with it, or disagree.

Political censorship is a breach of freedom of speach and shouldn't be allowed, especially in a country that espouses liberty above all else. I dont think anything Mr.Moore says will change the opinions of either side. It will just allow those whoe enjoy his work, to see another example.

This isn't censorship; it is a business decision on Disney's part. Disney feels that distributing the film will have a negative impact on its business, and it apparently made such feelings clear to Miramax early on. Miramax decided to go ahead anyway on the hope they could change Disney's mind.

The film apparently will still be shown at Cannes, and another distributor who does not share Disney's fears could pick it up as well.

Yeah right, they provide more right-winged propaganda than the Swedish goverment, and that's a LOT.How did you conceive of the notion that a socialdemocratic party is propagating right-wing views?

Supporting the megacorps, don't caring about the small man, and generally being a right-wing party.

I find the presumtion that censorship needs a state actor interesting, especially in the age of outsourcing.

When propaganda gets outsourced to the private sector to standard media - a private smear campaign on dissenters or intimidation of dissenters on private media (FOX anyone?) does pretty much the same as censorship. And a partisan medium doesn't need any censoring anyhow.

Add a public climate, like in the pre-war frenzy, of "when you're anti-war you're a terrorist yourself" and you end up having just that, only without a state actor.

Take Bush-happy private radio talk hosts calling to bulldoze dixie chicks CDs because of them scoffing Bush - they don't don't do censorship? Yes, no direct state involvement in sight. But what do they do then?
They incite against, and intimidate (and succeeded, the chicks caved in) dissenters, turning them to shut up or change their tune. What is that except outsourced censorship?

Political and economic pressure on media bosses to project the same pressure on journalists or moviemakers isn't exactly censorship but close enough to smell silly.

Insofar it is hard to say if a corporate decision like Disney's was an act of censorship or not. But in any case Disney must have feared repercussions to drop the film.

Then it would not really be censorship but intimidation. What a comforting difference.

[ May 05, 2004, 22:54: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I see no presumption that censorship demands a state actor. The simple fact is Disney is not suppressing the film or removing parts that it finds objectionable; it is simply not willing to pay for distribution costs because it believes the potential costs outweigh the potential gains.

Miramax is free to seek another distributor.

The film will be shown at the Cannes film festival.

I see no censorship whatsoever.

But in any case Disney must have feared repercussions to drop the film.Now that is an interesting assumption, but how can Disney be said to drop a film it never picked up and didn't want from the beginning?

Actually, disney is breaking its contract. It was only legally allowed to prehibit miramax from doing the film if it went way over budget or got a NC-17 rating. Disney knew what kind of movie he was making and decided to back out at the last minute because of tax break concerns. The fact that Disney was concerned enough that they belived Jeb would punish Disney is censorship, though of a decidedly more subtle kind, but it is censorship nonetheless. Now the launch of the movie in major theaters will be delayed, very possibly past the election, where it cannot have any major effect. The important question really is Disney just being paranoid, or did a certain someone call Eisner? If its the former, the sitiuation is unfortnate but tolerable. If it is the latter, it is reprehensible. Make no mistake, the Bushies fear Michael Moore - his last movie is by far the highest grossing documentary of all time (of which the previous record holder was yet another Michael Moore film). He also has a monopoly on film. He has no right wing filmmaker equivilant to counter him unlike in television and print. That is why he is considered dangerous. I honestly dont care as long his film gets released before the election, otherwise I will be severly peeved at Disney (although now that Pixar is leaving, nothing much about Disney that I care about anyway) because they would have effectively censored the film because it would not be relevant after the election (unlike his previous film which dealt with gun violence primarily and so would not matter who was president).

If anyone called Eisner, his or her initials would be WC or HC.

Eisner was a big supporter of the Clintons run for office in '96. I seriously doubt that any pressure from the Bush administration would sway him.

Think about it, Hillary wants to be the first female President, but she doesn't want to take on an incumbent President. That means that if the Democrats win the Presidency, she would either have to be the VP (something I seriously doubt Kerry will offer or Hillary would accept if it was offered) in order to run in 8 years, or most likely, it would be 12 years before she could run, as in most cases the VP is a shoe in for the parties nomination in the next election. If memory serves, Hillary was born in 1947. By the time she could run in the 2016 elections, she would be 69 years old when she takes office. That would put her second behind on the oldest presidents list, only a few months behind Reagan who was almost 70 when he took office. Even in 8 years she would be the 4th oldest president, pushing Bush 41 down to 5th. If whoever is Kerry's running mate should end up serving 2 terms as President Hillary will be completely shut out of ever becoming President by being too old at 73 year of age.

Hillary is convinced that she is destined to be President, and will not leave her chances in someone elses control. Shooting John Kerry down so that she can run in four years without having to face an incumbent (Cheney has no interest in being President, and couldn't beat Dukakis in an election) would not be beneath her. (What legal records, I have no idea where they are, ohhhh, you mean the ones I have been hiding, errr, I mean were unnoticed in my office in the White House, the ones with my fingerprints on them? Those records? I don't know how those got there!).

I made a witty and didn't even realize it. "Shooting John Kerry down". He has three purple hearts and when he actually finally gets "shot" by the enemy, it will most likely be by someone in his own party! :roll: :rolling: :spin:

Edit - The above by Darkwolf is way off topic, so if you want to comment start a new topic...


Actually, disney is breaking its contract. Disney would disagree with you.

From the article:
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. Disney knew what kind of movie he was making and decided to back out at the last minute because of tax break concerns.Again, not according to Disney. They indicated they didn't want the deal to happen at all; this was no last minute backing out.

The fact that Disney was concerned enough that they belived Jeb would punish Disney is censorship, though of a decidedly more subtle kind, but it is censorship nonetheless.Even if this assertion is true (Disney says it's not), it's still not censorship; nobody is preventing Miramax from having the film distributed by someone else.

...because they would have effectively censored the film because it would not be relevant after the election...The film will be shown this month at Cannes. There will be plenty of commentary; this flak over Disney is nothing but good publicity for the film, and it will get all the more exposure because of it.

I just don't see any problem with censorship here.

Cannes is not the same as a nationwide release. Word of mouth means nothing without anyone seeing it. As for the rest, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

In the long run, it won't make any difference whether it comes out tomorrow in after the election. Think about it - this film has propoganda written all over it. People supporting Kerry will flock to the theaters to see it, but they weren't voting for Bush anyway. Bush supporters either won't see it or will write it off as propoganda and untrue. So it won't have nearly as big an impact as many people think it will - you can't change someone's mind if it's already made up.

The thing that bothers me about Moore is that I liked "Roger and me". I thought that was a first class documentary. Now he seems more interested in politics than anything else. I thought his Columbine movie was undeserving of being called a documentary and I'm curious what the academy will do with this one.

I know I will not pay theatre prices to see it, but it will eventually make its way to HBO and I will give it a shot then.

I've seen BfC, and it was interresting, but also a bit twisted. Why would anyone demonize his own society, his own country ? What's he trying to prove to the rest of the world ? That Americans are all idiots, a bunch of ignorant gunslinging idiots ? If i didn't know any better, i'd ALMOST believe him.

Michael Moore is an idealist, and idealists have a very peculiar way of putting things in perspective. If i am to take that man serious, i'd have to check under my bed before i go to sleep. Therefore, i HEAR him, but i don't LISTEN to him.

He wasn't demonizing America. I have never understood the mentality of critisizing = unpatriotic, unsupportive, or Americabashing. It is criticism, nothing more. We are a gun happy culture. Trust me, I've been accosted by gun-nuts before. I used to work 3rd shift at WallyWorld. We stopped selling ammo after 11:00 pm. This was due I believe to a shooting in California, where a guy went to Wal-Mart late at night, bought ammo and killed his wife or something similiar. Anyway, this guy wants to buy shotgun shells around midnight. I told him we don't sell ammo after 11:00. He cussed me out, showing me his NRA checkbook, which proudly boasted his rights. I of course told him that the ammo was Wal-Mart property and we could sell it however and whenever we wanted. He stomped off pissed and cussing. This was not an isolated incident. I have many friends who are practicaly gunnuts, having dozens of guns and seriously talk about the UN wanting to take over. Why is it in America sex is so feared and reviled, but violence is perfectly ok. Flash a boob and everyone freaks out, but show live violence and thats great entertainment. Yes, Michael Moore is politcally active. You cannot be a social activist and not be so. But those who think he is a great lover of the democrats are totally wrong. He bashes them as weak kneed pansies as much as Rush does. But he is also a realist and knows (to him) that Bush is wrong for the country and will support Kerry and not Nader (who he supported until near the end of the 2000 election, he actually asked Naders people to drop out of Florida so Bush could not win it) because to him it is better to remove Bush than to support a man who is truly closer to his ideals. Yes, he exaggerates some, but so does most everyone else (Al Franken being about the only really honest, if baised (as in only pointing out Republican flaws) political book writer out there that I know of - Just get his book to see how crazy Ann Coulter is) and it is more to make a point than to be totally accurate. Everyone does this unfortuantly. At least he has a sense of humor about it. And the movie isn't as much for Kerry supporters as the small but undecided voter group. As we saw in 2000, if he even sways a few voters, that could change everything.

Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 May 2004


Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office.

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution. So, it appears that Michael Moore is a liar (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901). Can't say I'm particularly surpised.

Yes, his AGENT was told. Michael Moore was not. He did not say his agent told him at that time. I love how the article says he admits that it was a publicity stunt, then nowhere in the article is that admission. Then it says his agent, NOT MICHAEL MOORE, was told. Not saying Michael Moore didn't know, just that that is one horribly biased article with a serious agenda. It would be like seeing an article saying "BUSH ADMITS HE WANTS TO TAKE OVER IRAQ" and then the article actually says Bush has an agenda in Iraq of which invovles creating a free society.

Oh come on, that's no excuse. An agent is supposed to be someone's righthand. That means that if someone informed the agent, he should be informing his boss over the phone THE SAME MINUTE. If the agent didn't do that, then Moore doesn't have very capable employees.

As Pac Man said, you had better believe Moore knew within one day (and that's giving the agent the benefit of the doubt) about Disney's position.

I can just see it now:

Moore: What!! Disney won't distribute my film?! How dare they do this to me at the last second.

Agent: Errr. . . . Eisner told me a year ago, but I didn't think it was important to bother you with that.

Moore: You're fired.

Come on. No agent would fail to tell his principal about something that important.

Yes, his AGENT was told. Michael Moore was not. He did not say his agent told him at that time. I love how the article says he admits that it was a publicity stunt, then nowhere in the article is that admission. Then it says his agent, NOT MICHAEL MOORE, was told. Not saying Michael Moore didn't know, just that that is one horribly biased article with a serious agenda. It would be like seeing an article saying "BUSH ADMITS HE WANTS TO TAKE OVER IRAQ" and then the article actually says Bush has an agenda in Iraq of which invovles creating a free society. Yes, yes, I see it all so clearly now! Moore's agent definitely wouldn't tell him that Disney had no intentions of allowing Miramax to distribute his film, since clearly Moore has no need to known this minor detail.

If it happened as you suggested, I'm almost certain that the article would refer to him as his ex-agent rather than his agent.

Umm, I clearly said that I wasn't denying that he knew, just that the article plainly claims that he admits to it, then nowhere at all in the article does it back up the headline. Again, another example would be "WMD's found in Iraq" then the article talks about the WMD programs that could have been activated possibly. Not saying that he is innocent, I was critisizing the article. I prefer to wait until all the facts are known. Then I'll judge.

Well, here is what Moore is saying about it:
When You Wish Upon A Star... by Michael Moore

May 7th, 2004

Friends,

Thank you for all the incredible letters of support as my film crew and I once again slog our way through the corporate media madhouse. Does it ever end? Are we ever going to get control of our "free press" again? Can you wish upon a star?

The Disney spin machine has been working overtime dealing with this censorship debacle of theirs. I don't think they thought they would ever be outed. After all, they know that all of us are supposed to adhere to the unwritten Hollywood Code: Never tell the public how business is done here, never let them have a peek at the man behind the curtain.

Disney has been hoping for nearly a year that they could keep this thing quiet. As I promised on Wednesday, here are the details behind my sordid adventure with the Magic Kingdom:

In April of 2003, I signed a deal with Miramax, a division of the Walt Disney Co., to finance and distribute my next movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The original financier had backed out; I will tell that story at a later date.) In my contract it is stated that Miramax will distribute my film in the U.S. through Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista Distribution. It also gives Miramax the rights to distribute and sell the movie around the world.

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.

But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film.

But then, a few weeks ago when Fahrenheit 9/11 was selected to be in the Cannes Film Festival, Disney sent a low-level production executive to New York to watch the film (to this day, Michael Eisner has not seen the film). This exec was enthusiastic throughout the viewing. He laughed, he cried and at the end he thanked us. "This film is explosive," he exclaimed, and we took that as a positive sign. But "explosive" for these guys is only a good word when it comes to blowing up things in movies. OUR kind of "explosive" is what they want to run from as fast as they can.

Miramax did their best to convince Disney to go ahead as planned with our film. Disney contractually can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it has received an NC-17 rating (ours will be rated PG-13 or R).

According to yesterday's New York Times, the issue of whether to release Fahrenheit 9/11 was discussed at Disney's board meeting last week. It was decided that Disney should not distribute our movie.

Earlier this week we got the final, official call: Disney will not put out Fahrenheit 9/11. When the story broke in the New York Times, Disney, instead of telling the truth, turned into Pinocchio.

Here are my favorite nuggets that have come out of the mouths of their spinmeisters (roughly quoted):

"Michael Moore has known for a year that we will not distribute this movie, so this is not news." Yes, that is what I thought, too, except Disney kept sending us all that money to make the movie. Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine.

"It is not in the best interests of our company to distribute a partisan political film that may offend some of our customers." Hmmm. Disney doesn't distribute work that has partisan politics? Disney distributes and syndicates the Sean Hannity radio show every day? I get to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day on Disney-owned WABC. I also seem to remember that Disney distributed a very partisan political movie during a Congressional election year, 1998—a film called The Big One... by, um... ME!

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is not the Disney brand; we put out family oriented films." So true. That's why the #1 Disney film in theaters right now is a film called, KILL BILL, VOL. 2. This excellent Miramax film, along with other classics like Pulp Fiction, have all been distributed by Disney. That's why Miramax exists -- to provide an ALTERNATIVE to the usual Disney fare. And, unless they were NC-17, Disney has distributed them.

"Mr. Moore is doing this as a publicity stunt." Michael Eisner reportedly said this the other day while he was at a publicity stunt cutting the ribbon for the new "Tower of Terror" ride (what a pleasant name considering what the country has gone through recently) at Disney's California Adventure Park. Let me tell you something: NO filmmaker wants to go through this kind of controversy. It does NOT sell tickets (I can cite many examples of movies who have had to change distributors at the last minute and all have failed). I made this movie so people could see it as soon as possible. This is a huge and unwanted distraction. I want people discussing the issues raised in my film, not some inside Hollywood fracas surrounding who is going to ship the prints to the theaters. Plus, I think it is fairly safe to say that Fahrenheit 9/11 has a good chance of doing just fine, considering that my last movie set a box office record and the subject matter (Bush, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq) is at the forefront of most people's minds.

So what will happen to my movie? I still don't know. What I do know is that I will make sure all of you see it by hook or crook. We are Americans. There are a lot of screwed up things about us right now, but one thing that most of us have in common is that we don't like someone telling us we can't see something. We despise censors, and the worst censors are those who would dare to limit thoughts and ideas and silence dissent. THAT is un-American. If I have to travel across the country and show it in city parks (or, as one person offered yesterday, to show it on the side of his house for the neighborhood to see), that is what I will do.

More to come, stay tuned.

Yours,

Michael Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

P.S. Be sure to check out yesterday's New York Times Editorial, "Disney's Craven Behavior"

Poor Moore, he just can't catch a break.

Labor Dispute Clouds Opening of Cannes (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/movies/12CANN.html?ei=5006&en=0eebf5b362039b75&ex=1084939200&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=)

Now his movie is probably going to get upstaged by this French labor dispute. Gosh I feel sorry for poor Michael. :aww:

Poor Bush, he just can't catch a break.

Looks like there won't be a protest after all. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/12/cannes.festival/index.html)

Now his movie is probably going to get a chance to be seen by the world. Gosh I feel sorry for poor George. :heh:

Got news for you DR, the majority of the people in this country don't even know who Moore is, and I will be very surprised if his little piece of propaganda will hurt Bush at all. The only people who want to see Fahrenheit 411 are those who would vote for anyone as long as their last name isn't Bush.

It would be a lot more harmful to Moore if the film wasn't shown that it will be to Bush because it is.

Gosh...NEWS! Thanks, that changes everything. Most people in this country don't know who Dick Cheney is either. What's your point? Besides, I know a hell of a lot more conservatives and moderates who saw - and liked - "Bowling for Columbine" than I do your arch-enemies, the libs. It'll have a decent audience, don't worry. I never said it would throw the election.

Didn't really want to get into it with you here...I just felt like replying to your snide little comment with an equally snide little comment refuting it. I find it amusing that you never contribute to a thread about a Bush critic unless it's to add a link to some news story that either somehow discredits them or makes them look bad, and provide a snarky comment of your own to further that character assassination. You never talk about the validity of the issues they address, you just serve up justification to dismiss them. Shoot that messenger...he's comin' right for us!

I also love how you refer to a film that's not even out yet or that you've never seen as "propaganda," when you have no idea wether or not the subject matter is actually factual. I understand the definition of propaganda, but usually people refer to it in the context of exaggerations and fabrications intended to unfairly sway public political view. You incinuating this here as well is pretty obvious.

I would think, as adamantly pro "war on terror" and anti "muslim extremism" as you claim to be, you wouldn't have a problem with people pointing out the well-documented fact that our president has close personal and business ties with some of the biggest terrorist supporters on earth (which, from what I've read, will be detailed at great length in the film). I personally reserve judgement on the film till I see it, but his liberal grand-standing aside, I have yet to find an instance where Moore has outright lied about something in his films or books. Heavily biased, yes. Unfair at times, sure...but that doesn't make him a liar.

If nothing else, like most of Moore's material, it will be funny.

I can't help but feel a bit sorry for the Bush supporters. I mean here it is an election year and six months before the elections will take place their man has one of the lowest approval ratings in history for a sitting president(what is it...41% right now? Ouch!)! When Bush Jr. was announced as the replucican nominee in 2000 many if not most REPUBLICANS thought he was a moron but the dittoheads and FOX news personel worked overtime to unify eveeryone, publicly contesting the notion that Bush was not too bright every chance they got.
And they did ALL that work for what?? So their man could offer embarrasing faux pax after faux pax...grammatically challenged speeches so notorious that they spawned an entire sub-genre of political reporting(his infamous "Bushisms"). So he could lead America into the worst economic crisis we have experience in decades? So we could end up embroiled in multiple wars that have turned into exactly the type of Viet Nam-esque bogs which conservative pundits assured us could never happen.

Remember what the folks at FOX and MSNBC were saying when the statue of Saddam came down?

"All those journalists who criticised the war should be fired or at least offer an apology with their resignation!"

I heard the above uttered almost word for word by at least ten different reporters/commentators at FNN and MSNBC at that time.

"We will be done here and our boys will be back home in weeks!"

"When we actually DO become embroiled in a Viet Nam type quagemire then you can criticise but until then SHUT UP!"


Both of the above were uttered more times than I can count by neo-cons and the like.


I did not oppose the war for the record. In fact if they had treated it like a WAR and the reason they offered was control of oil I would probably have come out in support of the whole thing.
But I DID recognise that we had a moron adn his committe of personally selected morons in charge of the whole thing and I did not have confidence that blind luck could trump moronic action.

Michael Moore is, as someone said above biased, exaggerative and , AFAIAC flat out wrong on many issues but he is not a liar.

I am a HUGE fan of Al Franken. An unapologetic liberal(like myself) who not only doesn't lie but is not prone to the irrational "O.J. is innocent" type conspiracy nonsense that much of the left(including Moore) espouse.

The only people who want to see Fahrenheit 411 are those who would vote for anyone as long as their last name isn't Bush.
Well, right now that seems to be about half the country. Kerry doesn't have to do very much at the moment (which he hasn't, by the way) except let Shrub continue to flounder about as his presidency falls into the abyss. At this point, even Nader may not be able to prevent Shrub's slide into political oblivion.

I get the feeling that, when all is said and done and we are finished counting bodies, tallying up the bill and otherwise calculating the harm he and his cronies caused, Bush would prefer oblivion to the treatment he is likely to receive from the history books.

I had reasonable hopes that he would generally be innocuous when he was elected (yes, he was elected, let's not rehash that old argument). But 9/11 lit a fire under his ass and, rather than just pour some water on it, he poured gasoline. It's amazing how absolutely stupid this war looks in 20/20 hindsight (which, as a non-politician, I can use to my heart's content). As DR mentioned elsewhere, we should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished Osama -- idiot.

Wow DR, you are pretty good at doing exactly what you accuse me of, character assassination.

As far as me calling this propaganda, first, quit putting words in my mouth about what I may or may not be “incinuating”. I said it is propaganda, and based upon the definition of propaganda I stand by that:

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person From: Webster definition of propaganda (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=propaganda)

Now it appears that I am not the only one who feels that way, and that someone who actually saw the movie agrees with me:
Film review: Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004051802390002331681&dt=20040518023900&w=RTR&coview=)

There is no debate, no analysis of facts or search for historical context. Moore simply wants to blame one man and his family for the situation in Iraq the United States now finds itself in. Even if one agrees with all of Moore's arguments, the film reduces decades of American foreign-policy failures to a black-and-white cartoon that lays the blame on one family. He ignores facts like the policy to arm and support Afghan rebels that began in the Carter administration. For that matter, the Clinton team never mounted a serious effort to go after al-Qaida even after the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa. What Moore seems to be pioneering here is a reality film as an election-year device. The facts and arguments are no different than those one can glean from political commentary or recently published books on these subjects. Only the impact of film may prove greater than the printed word. So the real question is not how good a film is "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- it is undoubtedly Moore's weakest -- but will a film help to get a president fired? As far as me not knowing what is in the movie, you are right, I don’t, and I won’t unless Moore decides to show his film for free, or give all his profits to the causes of rebuilding Iraq, or supporting the families of those who died in this war. If Moore feels so strongly about this issue, then he should give up his profits for the endeavor to prove his sincerity. Otherwise I will continue to dismiss this film as propaganda.

Personally, I am outraged that Moore is going to profit by taking advantage of this tragedy, and I will not provide money to him as a reward.

Alright, this discussion is getting a little acrimonious, on both sides. Enough. If you've got something to say to the other individually, use PM.

As far as me not knowing what is in the movie, you are right, I don’t, and I won’t unless Moore decides to show his film for free, or give all his profits to the causes of rebuilding Iraq, or supporting the families of those who died in this war. If Moore feels so strongly about this issue, then he should give up his profits for the endeavor to prove his sincerity. Darkwolf, the problem with this arguement is if he did this, he would be undermining his movie. How can one logically release a movie that largely opposes the war in Iraq, and then give the profits in support of the war in Iraq. It's the equivalent of Chandros mailing his paychecks to Bush. (Not that he actually does that, but he was the first very liberal SPer that sprang to my mind.)

I said rebuilding, not to the war effort. There are plenty of charities that are not affiliated with the US Government that are sending supplies to Iraq for Iraqis, and many others that will dedicate themselves to helping those Iraqis who suffered because of the war once the occupation ends. This in no manner shows support for the war. It is pretty cruel, and petty, not to support the Iraqi people in orderto punish the Bush administration for its actions. It is also dispicable to make a profit by exploiting their suffering.

I would just like to say that Fahrenheit 9/11 has got glowing reviews here in Sweden. That is not very unexpected though. I think that whether you think the movie is good or not depends on your general political stance. I do however think it is a mistake to reject something just because. If Ann Coulter made a movie I would be lining up outside just to see what she had to say. I would recommend anyone who is interested in politics and the general situation in the world to go and see Moore's movie. So what if hte dude makes a few more millions? He already has enough but no matter the case it is always useful and educational to see what the other side has to say.

Sorry joacqin, but I disagree with you. I won't go see Moore's movie because even the reviews I have read that praise it admit that there is nothing new in it. It is just basically a rehash of what is already known.

It wouldn't matter who made this movie, and for what purpose it was made (ie, if Ollie North made a documentary showing Iraqi's hugging soldiers, victims of Saddam’s torture chambers and chemical weapons, and soldiers pulling vulnerable Iraqi's off of bridges to prove the war is just), if it was being made for profit, I wouldn't go see it.

I have seen enough of people suffering in my life, watching a little more gratuitous misery is not going to change my views.

... I won't go see Moore's movie because... there is nothing new in it.

... if it was being made for profit, I wouldn't go see it.
Are those two separate reasons?
The first reason makes sense, but IMHO the second doesn't. If a filmmaker does not make a profit from his film(s), he will have a very hard time making more films.

Ok, one last shot at this.

I will not pay Moore to see a movie in which allegedly all he does is take information that we already know, and spins it with his humor, while depicting the suffering of the Iraqi people in the background. The fact that he will be making money on a film that apparently provides nothing new, and is using the misery of some of the Iraqi people as a backdrop for his admittedly political attack on the President is completely exploitive.

As was stated above, the man has millions already. If he is such an altruist and wants us all to know the "truth", why does he attempt to take profit from depictions of those suffering?

Before I am attacked on them, I will address the quotation remarks around the word truth above. Mr Moore does not engender himself as a purveyor of the truth with such statements as:
The funniest story my guys tell me is how when they fly into Baghdad, they don't have to show a passport or go through immigration. Why not? Because they have not traveled from a foreign country -- they're coming from America TO America, a place that is ours, a new American territory called Iraq. You can't get on a plane that is going to land in Baghdad without showing your credentials prior to takeoff, and no one lands in Baghdad without acquiring authorization prior to taking off. So why should they check your credentials upon arrival?
Moore knows this is a lie, so what is his motivation for telling it?

Darkwolf, when I fly out of the U.K I have to show my passport, credentials etc. When I get to my arrival destination, u.s, spain, whatever, I again have to show my passport. All people flying into the u.k have to do the same. This is called immigration control.

The point I think Michael Moore seemed, to me at least, to be making was that anyone from the Continental U.S didnt need to pass through any form of immigration. Yet, anyone coming in from any other destination did.

And so that creates a logical jump to state that Iraq is now am American Territory?

You comparison is analogous to comparing apples to oranges. We are not dealing with conventional travel here. You cannot go get your passport, slap down your AmEx card and buy a ticket for seat on a plane bound for Baghdad. You have to be cleared by the coalition to go there before you ever leave. When you travel from Europe to America, you do not announce to the US government what time, and flight you will be arriving on, and the security for getting on such a flight is much lower than for flights to Baghdad. So instead of requiring all that in advance they simply examine your docs when you arrive.

There is no doubt that Iraq is an occupied territory, but it is not an American Territory.

I would recommend anyone who is interested in politics and the general situation in the world to go and see Moore's movie. So what if hte dude makes a few more millions? He already has enough but no matter the case it is always useful and educational to see what the other side has to say.In today's film industry, a few million is just a drop in the bucket. It would be interesting to see if an Ann Coulter film received similar criticism. I, for one, intend to see Moore's latest.

I would recommend anyone who is interested in politics and the general situation in the world to go and see Moore's movie. I think that this is a rather far stretch. From what everyone is saying this movie is closer to propaganda or even a campaign ad rather than a documentary or educational film.

I personally think it will be hilarious if the movie is determined to be a campaign ad and the theatres/media are forced to give equal air time to Bush to refute the charges.

In a complete non-surprise, Fahrenheit 911 won the Palme D'Or at Cannes.