Krugman on Fahrenheit 9/11
 

Here's some red meat for you, courtesy of http://www.washingtonmonthly.com :

"KRUGMAN ON MOORE....Paul Krugman takes on Fahrenheit 9/11:

There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?

That just about covers it."

Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

I never thought I would say this, but with his continuing rant on Moore's movie, Scarborough has surpassed Hannity. He is now, hands down, the biggest idiot in all of TV.

Having seen the movie just this evening, I would dispute any claims of factual errors. Does Moore manipulate imagery in a way to steer audiences to the points he is trying to make? Of course he does, but in a way, obviously, that does not result in the devastation created by the Bush administration's war. They have manipulated the mass media to convey a number of ideas about Iraq and terrorism that are simply untrue. Krugman's analysis is right on target.

Of course, one could judge the movie without actually seeing it, as the Bush communications director did--he insisted that he did not need to see it to know that it was factually in error. This reminds me of ignorant people who seek the removal of books from the school curriculum, or from the library shelves, without reading them.

Joe B.

Hannity, who usually starts his interviews out with "Why are you a Bush Hater?" is truly pathetically cartoonish when he calls Moore's stuff "biased". Former Congressman Scarboro is running an MSNBC-paid half hour commercial for the Republican party that even they aren't watching because the show is so stupid and he is so shallow. He won't be around long. They need to replace him with that hot looking Italian CNBC business reporter with the legs that would wake up a dead man, as soon as possible.


Dimissing propositions simply based on the person making the propositions perceived bias is intellectual stupity. The entire point of analysis to hold any proposition up to the light, and bombard it with questions from all sides. The more people join in, the more thorough the analysis as each possible perspective on the propositions truth is explored. That is why an Internet forum's value as a medium of exchange of political ideas is superior to the Idiot Box or that ultimate idiot box, AM radio. There's no "host" or "anchor" to control the discussion in ways that distort it. I posted some of Moore's propositions on the Saudi plane flights here and got good points on both right and left, and the right scored some excellent hits on it - enough to where I came away thinking Moore was a lot more shaky in that area than I originally thought. At the same time, Moore's position on our incredibly weak response to Osama in Afganistan and Bush's fear-based propaganda push for an unnecessary War in Iraq just added even more evidence to the strength of what is daily becoming an unassailable conclusion - we were had. No one side is totally right or wrong, even Libertarians. Dismissing someone because they are biased is simply an easy out. Bring 'em on, I say.

If Jenna Jameson is on a DVD cover it's safe to assume that it's a porno is it ignorant to assume that? If Rush Limbaugh made a movie about the WTC I or the USS Cole bombing would you give it the same credibiltiy as MM? It's not a mental leap to assume you have bias yourself by simply by stating that those that don't want to waste 2 hours on that movie are ignorant. Maybe some of us wish to see the movie but refuse to contribute money to see it.

The movie is full of holes and lies which is proven very easily like in the other 9-11 thread here. Clarke was made a hero in the movie but in real life he's the only one that authorized the BL flight by his own admission.

I don't think he's saying anyone who doesn't want to see it is ignorant. But it is silly to try to critique a movie without seeing it. Yes, Jenna Jamison on the cover probably means it's porn, but how can you say if it's good porn without seeing it?

By seeing her previous movies and checking the reviews in AVN.

It's not hard to find the facts about MM's movie is my point a simple Google will reveal plenty of bs.

To me the Bin Laden family flight thing is the deal breaker his complete distortion of that issue kills any credibility the movie might have. The fact that he actually heroized Richard Clarke who authorized the flight and managed to make it a Bush thing makes it obvious that he intended to distort the truth.

Regarding the ignorant issue...that's your opinion, but history and previous statements make my conclusion highly plausible.

Disclaimer: I know heroized isn't a real word but since F911 is just a movie I thought it fit well.

No. Moore may be unfair to his adversaries, but he is not a cartoon figure. Limbaugh not only lies continuously, his "arguments" often don't even make sense. As a polemicist, Limbaugh isn't even close to being in Moore's league.

I can't say I have paid close attention to all the attacks on Moore's movie, but so far, I have not heard or read anything that constitutes a lie. The movie seems to rely on a fair amount of innuendo and also make take some things out of context, but I am unaware of any lies.

It amazes me that any Bush supporter would complain about innuendo or about someone taking things out of context. Both techniques have become Bush/Cheney specialities.

By not seeing it tho, you will be at a disadvantage when it comes time to argue against it, and you will miss the opportunity to strengthen you own conviction as to the wrongness of the other side.

Actually, the movie exposes subject after subject that should be investigated further, and in exposing them Moore does us all a great service. Just by getting people talking about some of this stuff is a great service. We have been failed by a news media compliant with an all-too willing to mislead administration.

For example, on the air flight thing - there is a glaring point - Richard Clarke may have Ok'd the flight, but he is not the one that asked for the flights in the first place. He was an employee of the President doing the presidents bidding. The FBI, for some unknown reason, passed on them leaving with very little interviewing done. There are a lot of unanswered questions here. No matter what the explanation, identifying the people who exercised poor judgement is worth as much as finding some criminal conspiracy.

All and all, Moore does very well at showing us how little we really have been told about the War in Iraq by both the admnistration and the media and much of it is done in hard film - the films of the Iraqi civilain casualties, the films of our soldiers abusing prisoners even before the ABU Garib scandal, and statement after statement of Bush administration officials compared to the facts, all these films paint a disturbing picture of andministration that is basically out of control of the democratic process. It is a very well done movie.

I saw the movie a few days ago. Had to buy tickets two shows in advance and only got to see one that started at 10:00 pm. The theater was full.

I think what he shows are facts. Most are movie clips of either live events or interviews, better characterized as set ups. But there is no denying what you see on the screen actually happened.

The context of how it is shown is the issue. Forget the Bin Laden family escape, since you all seem to want to deny that, just look at the long term "relationship" between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family. Look at how much money has been poured into the Bush family (well, GWB's anyway) business flops from the Bin Laden businesses.

Like Kirk says, lots of food for thought. Jim

Watch the movie. I will even pay for your ticket if you can't bear to do so yourself. Jim

Posted by KirkVining: Actually, the movie exposes subject after subject that should be investigated further, and in exposing them Moore does us all a great service. Just by getting people talking about some of this stuff is a great service. We have been failed by a news media compliant with an all-too willing to mislead administration.

For example, on the air flight thing - there is a glaring point - Richard Clarke may have Ok'd the flight, but he is not the one that asked for the flights in the first place. He was an employee of the President doing the presidents bidding. The FBI, for some unknown reason, passed on them leaving with very little interviewing done. There are a lot of unanswered questions here. No matter what the explanation, identifying the people who exercised poor judgement is worth as much as finding some criminal conspiracy.

All and all, Moore does very well at showing us how little we really have been told about the War in Iraq by both the admnistration and the media and much of it is done in hard film - the films of the Iraqi civilain casualties, the films of our soldiers abusing prisoners even before the ABU Garib scandal, and statement after statement of Bush administration officials compared to the facts, all these films paint a disturbing picture of andministration that is basically out of control of the democratic process. It is a very well done movie.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moore, like any director, has a point of view. To support that point of view, he offers a factual underpinning. One has basically two options: 1) Base a judgment of the film on facts about Moore (he's fat, he's obnoxious, maybe you didn't like his style or point of view in previous films); or 2) See the movie, subject his facts to an analysis, and determine to your own satisfaction whether he has played fast and loose.

Kirk is correct--since the major media have played the role of cheerleader from the get-go of the Bush administration, and since reporters were "embedded" (read "in bed with") U.S. forces, our democracy needs to see things from a different vantage point. Rejecting Michael Moore out of hand does nothing to further the debate. It may be easier, but it is not smarter.

Joe B.

Not only are the theaters packed, but the crowds are standing up and cheering at the end, not only at the show I attended, reported as well by many different people I know who attended many different shows. And this is the heart of Bush country. Also, women in the audience cry throughout the movie, and are visibly upset whjen the movie is over. The scene of the pickup truck load of dead children, with the father picking his dead daughter from the mass of death brought everyone to tears. It is a powerful movie, and even people who disagree with him are powerfully affected. Anyone who sees this movie will never believe the media-government version of sanitized Nintendo War ever again. See a dead little girl, with her legs blown off at the knees, pulled from a pickup truck load of smashed children, held by a weeping father asking if this is what democracy is. I myself have been moved to see this war for what it is - no longer a political argument, but a war crime, plain and simple, perpertrated by lying purveyors of death and murder.

If fat-ball Moore and his propaganda is the best the left can do, then you best roll-up the mats and go home. Anybody that believes his hateful, tilted slant on America is just plain ignorant, or worst yet, operating from an agenda.

Moore is at best an opportunist attempting to get rich from the capitalist society he so hates, at worst, he appears to be a communist with an agenda of bringing down the government of the US. What he most likely is, however, is a former fat kid in high school wreaking havock with the types of people he despised back then. A true revenge of the nerds scenario. We can only hope that effects of obesity and bad living work quickly.