Fahrenheit 9/11 – Makes me glad Gore didn’t run again

This post was written by marc on June 26, 2004
Posted Under: Politics

I just saw the movie. Loved it! But the beginning sceenes reminded me about how angry I was with Gore after the 2000 selection. This movie is not just anti-bush. It’s also very anti-Gore and very accurate indead.

I remember when it came to to confirm bush as president members of the Congress wanted to speak out about the fraud that had just occurred and it was Gore who was shouting us down and preventing us from speaking out.

Gore wanted to be a gracious loser – but what Gore doesn’t get is that this election wasn’t about him. It was about the people of America and we had something to say and it wasn’t up to him to make that decision. And the movie really captures that.

Having said that – I also didn’t know the extent that Bush and the bin Ladens were business partners and now it’s pretty obvious why Bush isn’t going after bin Laden anymore. It’s because bin Laden did Bush a favor with 9-11 and Bush cares more about bin Laden and his Saudi friends than about Americans.

Unlike “The Day After Tomorrow” – a movie that truely sucked – Fahrenheit 9/11 is definitely a keeper. And for those of you who hate Democrats – there’s a lot in there for you too. Moore’s movie crosses party lines and give you a far more accurate version of reality that you see in the evening news on Television. me and the Sturdy Wench give the movie 2 thumbs up – a must see.

Reader Comments

I havn’t seen it yet, but I really want to see it, I had the chance to see it yesterday, well actually didnt since the only theator playing it the line to see it was about 4 blocks long, and it sold out before the lined shortend to two blocks.

#1 
Written By Joshua Gillogly on June 26th, 2004 @ 5:30 pm

I saw the movie today and have to say that it was powerful. Have never seen a movie cause such a stir. The facts were presented. Not many of the facts can be disputed. Those of you who disagree can always say “It is just a movie”.
Clearly, I will have to vote against George Bush in 2004 after having supported him in 2000. There is just too much evidence against. Even without the movie, there is one scandal after another and I am not seeing answers to the questions not to mention the quagmire in Iraq.
Powerful movie…see it even if you are for Bush. It will either change your mind or give you food for though or perhaps just make your beliefs more solid.

#2 
Written By ed on June 26th, 2004 @ 9:07 pm

I’ve read reviews both panning it and praising it. I’d be interested in seeing it in order to decide for myself how much of what he’s presenting is truth and how much is spin doctoring. That being said, I’m not planning on voting for Bush in November anyway.

#3 
Written By MadBlue on June 26th, 2004 @ 11:24 pm

I couldn’t wait to see this movie ever since it was announced. Saw it on the opening day, and twice since with friends. I genuinely laughed and cried, though more of the latter. In short, I loved it. Sponsored a free ticket give-away and voter registration efforts at a local college campus.

The opening part just made me want to scream, “I want my America back”! It was stolen from us, and I hope we can get it back before it is too late. (In many ways, it’s already too late. Much irreversible harm has been done to the American psyche, and the fact that Bush is still leading in the polls is an abomination.) Several other parts of the movie provoke a very strong emotional reaction as well, even on a third viewing.

There are a few aspects of the movie that were imperfect, however. Most notably the advertising campaign. If I had been in charge of promoting the movie, I would put together 3-4 different spots that sum up the top thought-provoking points the film makes: the Saudi influence, the way the Bush Administration used fear to push their agenda, the Patriot Act, the stolen election, etc. Instead we all see the scene with Bush on the golf course a thousand times over. Slip-ups like that are forgivable of Bush (and can be found on any public figure), and they weaken the message of the movie. I don’t care what Wolfowitz does with his comb! Etc.

I think Fahrenheit 9/11 could have been an even better movie than it turned out to be. Like other Moore films, it ranges from brilliant to silly, and I wonder if the silly parts are there to give the movie more range among the less politically literate demographic, who would otherwise find the movie boring. A necessary evil, I guess. It would be great if the DVD version would have a “pop-ups” option with the clarifications, attributions, and additional facts that the movie missed or could have additionally benefited from.

This movie, love it or hate it, is a monolith to free speech, and the campaign to harass theaters into not showing the movie was an embarrassment to America. The good news, it seems, is that not a single theater was swayed.

I’ve heard that there are a couple of rebuttal movies on their way out, and that is a good thing. The self-hating individual that I am, I just might go and see them. It is healthy for a person’s thought process to explore the things s\he doesn’t agree with. For example, seeing The Passion was an interesting experience, though what little respect I had for Christianity has plummeted as the result. (Heck, I even forced myself to read two of Bill O’Reilly’s books, through vomit, psychosomatic blindness, and all. Yes, F-9/11 is biased, all documentaries express an opinion. But having that loony on TV claiming to be “fair and balanced” is an impossibility of reason.) Anyway, I think Michael Moore should be challenged, and I think his work would evolve as the result.

To a lot of young people, Michael Moore is also a symbol of something they could become, and I think the ease of digital film-making and the Internet will enable a lot of people to follow in his footsteps. (Hey, Marc, hehe, you need a guy to follow you around with a camera?)

In the mean time, I will continue to encourage people to see Fahrenheit 9/11. Michael Moore’s work is accomplished and is accessible to everyone (as are the works of Al Franken and several other writers). And some people who are mature enough should also be encouraged to graduate to the next level, like for example the works of Noam Chomsky.

~~Alex~~

#4 
Written By Alex Libman on June 27th, 2004 @ 12:26 pm

Alex, I am going to see it … but just for its entertainment value. I love watching liberals babble propaganda. BUT, if anyone is going to pick their candidate based on a Mike Moore movie (or any movie for that fact) they are morons. More blame for this countries condition should be placed on people who make electoral decisions based on a movie than the guy who is has been in office for all of three years.

Ignorance runs rampant in this country!

#5 
Written By X-FREEPER on June 28th, 2004 @ 8:59 am

I agree.

#6 
Written By Alex Libman on June 28th, 2004 @ 11:47 am

Actually most of his information came from direct sources- do you know the difference? Anyways, the movie is not propaganda, propaganda is what is spewed from the mouths of everyone at fux news(fox). This actually is a tribute to investigative journalism and not yellow journalism, which fux seems to have mistaken.

#7 
Written By Willsmachine on June 29th, 2004 @ 9:12 pm

“Anyways, the movie is not propaganda”

From Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary:

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: “prä-p&-‘gan-d&, “prO-
Function: noun
(Etymology and first definition removed; see them here:http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=propaganda)
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Hmm. That looks exactly like what Michael Moore is doing with F 9/11. Even if we don’t agree that whether or not it was fact or rumor, we don’t have to, because the definition encomapasses both. Hell, Moore -admits- that it’s propaganda when he says he’s doing it to stop the right wing.

#8 
Written By Mance on June 30th, 2004 @ 8:48 am

Put that definition up against the Bush Administrations statements and spreechs and you have the same thing

#9 
Written By Shadow Hawk on July 1st, 2004 @ 7:23 pm

i call beheading a fellow american and saying its a terrorist group, now thats propoganda!
i call acusing a nation of harboring terror and saying they have ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (EVEN THO WE HAVE THOUSENDS OF NUKES AND WE SUPPORT NATIONS THAT SUPPORT TERRORIST BY FUNDING THEM WITH AID AND FOR THEIR OIL)propoganda
i call hiring actors to do aids for ‘how good the healthcare system is’ right now propoganda

#10 
Written By joshua gillogly on July 2nd, 2004 @ 5:11 am

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.