unk wrote:Just came back from the film.
Wow.
I cannot believe what passes a a "documentary". While I thought it was definitely entertaining, I was distressed at how many new "facts" were nothing but already disproven accusations.
On one hand, all 'documentaries' are biased and present a particular 'point of view', on the other, anyone who is vaguely familiar with Moore's work knows what he is up to. I'm a bit surprised at your surprise. As I'll get to below, don't be so sure that Moore's claims are as off as you seem to think.
The main allegation about the Saudi family and Laden relatives was proven false by Richard Clark himself, who testified that it was HE that authorized their departures, AND it happened AFTER the skies were reopened to ALL.
This claimed 'disproving' is based on a piece by Michael Isikoff titled "Under the Hot Lights" in Newsweek, and has been reprinted elsewhere. I am all for picking apart polemical stuff like Moore's, but sadly, Isikoff's piece misses the mark. Moore is basing his statements on research by Craig Unger. What Unger asserts is that the flights began on the 13th, when the restrictions were still in place. The timing of the flights have been confirmed by people on the flights themselves, like Dan Grossi and Manuel Perez, and by airports, such as Tampa International. Quite simply, when the flights began on the 13th, they did have special clearance. When I see the film, I'll pay attention to whether Moore clouds this point or not, but for the time being, don't blindly trust Isikoff's supposed 'refutation' or any spin on Clark's statements.
But even more important than the special privileges given to the Saud/bin Laden flights was the fact that the people on the flights were allowed to go before they had been meaningfully interviewed, before their backgrounds had been meaningfully checked and before any significant investigation had begun. Several of the people on those flights had, in fact, been 'interviewed', but not in any meaningful way. People who had been fighting Osama bin Laden for years all say that on Sept. 11, they felt that bin Laden was most likely behind the attacks, but the Bush administration extended these special privileges to the Saudis when they might have had important information.
We couldn't know at that early date that they weren't important, but for some reason they were whisked away, regardless. That is the gist Moore's whole point.
How do you Americans justify such a blatant disregard for the truth? I think Moore has some points, but fabricating information, and a blatant ad hominem attack is poor form and should be discouraged in favor of legitimate discourse and action.
I agree that ad hominem attacks are generally a bad thing, but in this case the Bush administration repeatedly says 'trust us'. They are doing this with Guantanamo, with the definition of 'torture', with suspension of habeas corpus for US citizens, and in many other ways based on the old 'we have classified information' claims. In these ways, the administration is saying 'trust George W. Bush'. These ad hominem attacks are a way to point out that he is untrustworthy.
For shame to those too undereducated to realize the man is playing fast and loose with the facts and who will then allow this type of sensationalized rhetoric to shape their choices politically.
There was some funny stuff for sure, but the overall tenure of the film was rather hostile and vile, and it seems clear to those in the know (leftists pundits are already distancing themselves on Sunday blather-fests) that the type of rhetoric used in the film is more divisive than anything we have seen from either side (left or right) previously.
You make it clear that you aren't an American in your post, but nothing drives that home more than your ignorance of what is going on here. If you think that Moore is 'fabricating' or that the film is 'more divisive' then you will be truly shocked by what people like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, who are true Right-Wing propagandists, are doing. The Right has had a while now to pick apart F9/11, and so far the best they have come up with is quibbles like yours with the exact timing of the lifting of various flight restrictions vis a vis various flights. And they haven't even gotten their facts quite straight.
Limbaugh may have the excuse of drug addiction for some of his lies and fabrications, but Couter, in her books like 'Treason', does not. She is the pundit who famously suggested on national television that the US occupy the whole of the muslim world and forcibly convert them to Christianity. In her best-selling books she does the obvious like tweak statistics or omits words to misrepresent people's quotes. But she goes much further when she makes claims such as one that the New York Times is an elitist, leftist bit of trash because they didn't report on the death of a stock car driver. Not only did the NYT report on it, they ran a front page photo of the crash! There are many more examples of her flat-out lies, but that's a nice simple one that I can remember off the top of my head.
I feel sorry for Moore that he needs to stoop to such low levels in order to make his points, AND more importantly, I wholly question the use of such a medium to deliver such a message, to such a blatantly undereducated and wanting mass such as the American movie going public.
In part, that's just Moore's style. Watch Roger and Me to get a feel for the kind of desperation he's coming from. You can easily imagine an outraged person from the north of England making a similar film about what Thacher did to cities like Sheffield. But more importantly, if you compare how the US corporate media have covered this administration to how entities like the BBC have, you'll see how much has been ignored or oversimplified in the US coverage. (How many Americans know that the term 'enemy combatant' was made up by the administration, and has no meaning in international treaties? Or how about the British reporter who asked Blair what standing he had to criticize the Chinese on human rights abuses after revelations about abuse in Iraq? No US reporter has shown Bush II that kind of spine or honesty.) It is that vacuum that Moore is responding to. He probably is going to far, but it's nothing compared to the bile-filled lies that we have been enduring for years here from the Right.
Your entire system of entertainment and news have blurred their lines beyond comprehension. So much so, that the real truth has narry a chance of surviving the maelstrom of negativity most United States residents seem to feed off of like so much poisoned teat milk.
Good luck.
Generally, I agree with your last statement. With a defense contractor owning one of the major TV news channels, it isn't surprising. With Rupert Murdoch running an overtly biased 'news channel' that is devoid of journalistic integrity, it isn't surprising. With a population who can't find themselves on a world map, it isn't surprising.
But, after all, you saw the film, then swallowed a half-truth critique of it without realizing it.
All punditry aside, where are you from?
Bacon is meat candy.
