…according to this Web site.
Note the convenient, free, downloadable PDF version at the top of the page.
Note #59… that Moore is happy to cooperate with terrorist organizations who want to promote his film.
Even if only half of these stand up to scrutiny, it’s hard to believe that this is the behavior of the guy who went on Bill O’Reilly’s show, and called Bush a liar, then defined “liar” as someone who reports false information even if they believe what they’re saying is true?
By that definition… what does that make Michael Moore then, who has clearly fudged on the details in his film?
Understand, I say this in full sympathy of Moore’s cause. He’s got a monster by the tail, and he’s trying to convince everyone there’s a monster there. I believe him… I believe there IS a monster there. And F9/11 does contain some important information. I just think that the monster looks different than the one Moore’s imagining. And I’m frustrated that the Bush administration doesn’t ‘fess up to the fact that there IS a monster there. There HAVE been mistakes made. There ARE some pretty suspicious dealings going on behind the scenes. The American people HAVE been taken for a ride. I just resent the fact that Moore, who’s in a great place to speak about the mistakes that have been made, is blowing his opportunity by using such lousy tactics. It just robs him of his credibility.
Again, the tag line from that Alien vs. Predator movie comes in handy:
WHOEVER WINS, WE LOSE.
Sure Moore presnts the film HIS WAY. But the FACTS of the film still present a very disturbing picture of the Bush Administration: The lack of connection between Bin Laden & Saddam to justify the War. The Bush families extensive dealings with the Bin laden family through the Carlyle Group and the evacuation of the Bin Laden family post 9/11 despite a US no fly rule and the whole Halliburton uncontested post war Iraq contract scandal. As for Moore portarying Bush as a buffoon? It’s sad-the facts are damining enough. Bill Clinton was just in Australia with his book, and you can’t help but draw the comparison that Clinton has a razor sharp intellect whilst Bush doesn’t. To be honest i thought Moore wasn’t as hard on the Bush admin/ family as he could’ve been considering Prescott Bush’s(George Snr’s dad) deep connections with the Third Reich or the fact that Dick Cheney’s wife is on the board of Boeing who supply missiles, tanks and helicopters in vast quantities to the US military as a conflict of interest. Why whine about the movie’s framework-the fact that these disturbing facts aren’t getting the blowtorch they deserve is far more disturbing than the huckster hatchet job on Bush.
You’re obviously a smart guy, but are you so naive as to think that Michael Moore really has the truth at heart? Give me a break. You quoted a Matt LaBash article sometime back, and there’s an absolute wealth of information to debunk everything the man says.
The American people have been taken for a ride, you say? Back that up.
When I say that the U.S. has been “taken for a ride” by the administration, I don’t necessarily mean that I think the Iraq war has been an elaborate hoax.
I just continue to be frustrated with how little effort the administration seems to be making to answer the deafening accusations against them. We’re being “taken for a ride” in that it’s such hard work for us to get hold of what the Bush administration [I]thinks[/I] its doing as opposed to what vocal liberal critics [I]say [/I]they’re doing. When I talk to people who work for, or close to, the administration, I learn all kinds of things that I never see in the headlines, never see on the news, and rarely hear mentioned in their speeches.
That silence, or that presumption that we will blindly trust them, only contributes to the impression that there’s a lot more going on than they’re saying. Thus, like Michael Moore, I’m frustrated and it’s hard not to feel that the administration is more concerned about its relationships with Bush/Cheney business ties than with the American people.
For the record, I’m no fan of Kerry either. The Bush administration seems to defend itself only when dragged before a court, but otherwise remains silent. Kerry talks and talks and talks, and still has very little to say.
I really like that you approach this issue with a very open mind, but Michael Moore has given me no reason to believe that he has the truth at heart. I’ll clearly admit – as my own blogs attests – to being a conservative, though I’m got my beef with the Bush admin. But my own convictions aside, I see nothing in Moore’s body of work that suggests he is impartial. He was a strong opponent of Bush prior to 9/11 and he’s only become more hysterical after the event. He clearly had an agenda in the making of Farenheit 9/11.
I’m not picking a fight over this – I enjoy your work a great deal – but I’m curious; what about the Bush approach bothers you?
Brilliant excerpt Jeffery — thanks.
That excerpt is very good, and I plan on seeing the movie soon, but one caveat: For McLaren to use the term “churchgoer” is disingenuous. Americans have a specific definition of that term, and McLaren is too smart to not know that. The Hutus and Tutsi s were not and are not churchgoers in the same sense that Westerners are. There was no excuse for genocide, but one cannot possibility view the violence there in the context of Western words like that.
Again, I like the excerpt and the interview, but that term itself is completely bogus on McLaren’s part.
That’s okay Matt, he can always use Nazi Germany or current foreign invasions to support his point.
McLaren is a friend of a friend and I’ve talked with him now and then and often wondered about the effects of his growing media attention, so it’s good to see him asking provocative questions like this. In fact, I wish more Christian film critics were asking these sorts of systemic questions about the entertainment industry and its practical outcomes and what cultural assumptions they are promoting on a week-to-week basis.