Unfairenheit 9/11
- Thread starter Chanman
- Start date
Moore film distributor OK with terror support
Exec says firm doesn't want to risk boycott of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' in Mideast
The company distributing filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-bashing movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" says it won't reject an offer of help from Middle East terrorist organization Hezbollah.
As WorldNetDaily reported, terrorists affiliated with the Iran-backed network last week offered to help promote the film in the United Arab Emirates.
The movie industry publication Screen Daily reported, "In terms of marketing the film, [distributor] Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there's anything they can do to support the film."
The story then quotes Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra: "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria."
Terror-war supporting organization Move America Forward publicized the Chacra quote and reacted strongly against it.
"Michael Moore dismisses Americans who are upset with his film and the impact it has in undermining support for the war against terrorism," said Vice Chair Melanie Morgan. "At the same time, his distribution companies are concerned about offending the sensibilities of terrorists. That certainly gives rise to asking the question: Whose side are you on?"
As WND reported, many theater owners are showing caution about running overtly political film, which officially opens nationwide on Friday.
Last month, the Moore and his partners boasted the movie would be rolled out in more than 1,000 theaters nationwide.
Later, that number was revised to "about 1,000." The next estimate was 750. In recent days, the guess had dropped to below 500.
"Michael Moore has made it clear that this film is nothing more than an attempt to undermine support for the war on terrorism, and movie theater operators have made it clear they wish to have no part in Moore's anti-military propaganda," said Howard Kaloogian, chairman of Move America Forward. "This movie is about as popular as ice in Antarctica, and movie theaters are giving Michael Moore's 'bash America' flick a chilly reception."
Exec says firm doesn't want to risk boycott of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' in Mideast
The company distributing filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-bashing movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" says it won't reject an offer of help from Middle East terrorist organization Hezbollah.
As WorldNetDaily reported, terrorists affiliated with the Iran-backed network last week offered to help promote the film in the United Arab Emirates.
The movie industry publication Screen Daily reported, "In terms of marketing the film, [distributor] Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there's anything they can do to support the film."
The story then quotes Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra: "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria."
Terror-war supporting organization Move America Forward publicized the Chacra quote and reacted strongly against it.
"Michael Moore dismisses Americans who are upset with his film and the impact it has in undermining support for the war against terrorism," said Vice Chair Melanie Morgan. "At the same time, his distribution companies are concerned about offending the sensibilities of terrorists. That certainly gives rise to asking the question: Whose side are you on?"
As WND reported, many theater owners are showing caution about running overtly political film, which officially opens nationwide on Friday.
Last month, the Moore and his partners boasted the movie would be rolled out in more than 1,000 theaters nationwide.
Later, that number was revised to "about 1,000." The next estimate was 750. In recent days, the guess had dropped to below 500.
"Michael Moore has made it clear that this film is nothing more than an attempt to undermine support for the war on terrorism, and movie theater operators have made it clear they wish to have no part in Moore's anti-military propaganda," said Howard Kaloogian, chairman of Move America Forward. "This movie is about as popular as ice in Antarctica, and movie theaters are giving Michael Moore's 'bash America' flick a chilly reception."
for all the people that hate rush and shawn hannidy - how is this guy acceptable ? never have i seen anything about him that was somewhat redeeming.:shrug:
RRC,
Here are a few thoughts. This thing is too long and this guy really gets off on some unrelated (or very loosely related) tangents.
When he starts off with this, you really have to wonder:
"One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. "
I'm pretty sure that these adjectives are the stereotype of the right, not the left. What's that called when you pass off a false or misleading statement as fact and then build around it? Strawman, I think.
"How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight."
Murky and off-topic personal rant trying to 'prove' his earlier comment about how liberals are boring using boring Nation magazine meetings as evidence.
"Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."
We get it. He doesn't like the movie.
"Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)"
And then:
"It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not."
There's a disconnect here. I don't see the 'contradiction.' He didn't cite anything where Moore says whether the Saudis 'run US policy, or not. Yet he's trying to create a 'contradiction.' Strawman.
"Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all?the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002?or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film."
He's probably right about this one.
"If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. "
Although Moore seemingly contradicted himself on his opinion of Afghanistan, this guy is picking the convenient one to attack. Although the war in Afghanistan was justified, I don't know that there has been such incredible change there yet that omitting the few slight changes from a movie warrants attack. He isn't disputing anything factual, he's just whining because something wasn't in there.
"In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights."
Maybe we should leave that up to each for himself to decide. There still hasn't been any answer whatsoever from anybody on why this happened. I guess we cite the 9/11 commission as needed and dismiss it as partisan as needed..
"And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures."
Please.
" And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. "
Actually, that seems extremely 'likely.'
"President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off."
I agree with that. The bashing about vacations is silly.
"The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course."
lol- ok.
"We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then?wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism."
That's the manipulation that Moore uses that I referred to yesterday.
"The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings?not exactly an original point?the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. So?he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again?simply not serious."
Moore seems all over the place on this.
"Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? "
Wrong, and not the point anyways. He's trying to look at this in black and white while ignoring the Saudis who like to, or need to, play both sides of the fence.
"Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children)."
Obviously a ridiculous comment by Moore.
"Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet."
Moore looks stupid here, but like most of this article, the author rails on about most everything except the points in the movie.
" And as for the scary lawyers?get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of."
Again with the Telluride. This sounds like a little more than an 'objective reporter.' It seems pretty personal.
This article is pretty much one big slamfest against Moore personally and very thin when it comes to debating any of the points of the movie. When he does try to, he falls back on strawman arguments. It's ok, and I agree with a lot of the things he says about Moore, in general, but like most of the people on this board, he has a hard time rising above the cheapshots.
Here are a few thoughts. This thing is too long and this guy really gets off on some unrelated (or very loosely related) tangents.
When he starts off with this, you really have to wonder:
"One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. "
I'm pretty sure that these adjectives are the stereotype of the right, not the left. What's that called when you pass off a false or misleading statement as fact and then build around it? Strawman, I think.
"How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight."
Murky and off-topic personal rant trying to 'prove' his earlier comment about how liberals are boring using boring Nation magazine meetings as evidence.
"Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."
We get it. He doesn't like the movie.
"Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)"
And then:
"It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not."
There's a disconnect here. I don't see the 'contradiction.' He didn't cite anything where Moore says whether the Saudis 'run US policy, or not. Yet he's trying to create a 'contradiction.' Strawman.
"Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all?the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002?or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film."
He's probably right about this one.
"If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. "
Although Moore seemingly contradicted himself on his opinion of Afghanistan, this guy is picking the convenient one to attack. Although the war in Afghanistan was justified, I don't know that there has been such incredible change there yet that omitting the few slight changes from a movie warrants attack. He isn't disputing anything factual, he's just whining because something wasn't in there.
"In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights."
Maybe we should leave that up to each for himself to decide. There still hasn't been any answer whatsoever from anybody on why this happened. I guess we cite the 9/11 commission as needed and dismiss it as partisan as needed..
"And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures."
Please.
" And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. "
Actually, that seems extremely 'likely.'
"President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off."
I agree with that. The bashing about vacations is silly.
"The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course."
lol- ok.
"We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then?wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism."
That's the manipulation that Moore uses that I referred to yesterday.
"The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings?not exactly an original point?the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. So?he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again?simply not serious."
Moore seems all over the place on this.
"Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? "
Wrong, and not the point anyways. He's trying to look at this in black and white while ignoring the Saudis who like to, or need to, play both sides of the fence.
"Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children)."
Obviously a ridiculous comment by Moore.
"Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet."
Moore looks stupid here, but like most of this article, the author rails on about most everything except the points in the movie.
" And as for the scary lawyers?get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of."
Again with the Telluride. This sounds like a little more than an 'objective reporter.' It seems pretty personal.
This article is pretty much one big slamfest against Moore personally and very thin when it comes to debating any of the points of the movie. When he does try to, he falls back on strawman arguments. It's ok, and I agree with a lot of the things he says about Moore, in general, but like most of the people on this board, he has a hard time rising above the cheapshots.
