Fahrenheit 9/11: through the roof

[Artemis]

Bloody hell, sorry everyone - I've just posted the previous monster of a message and noticed it's size. Still, debate of this nature was part of the point of Fahrenheit 9/11 so I guess it's kind of appropriate. I hope it doesn't make too dull reading for those with an interest in the topic.

[untitled_london]

i enjoyed it pal - cheers for taking the time to put it up

[MojoJojo]

It's late, and I should already be asleep, so I'll finish with a question. What was the pupose of invading Iraq?

There were a number of reasons for the invasion, including that it would remove from power a man who supported terrorist organisations and was a threat both to his own people and the rest of the world. What is more important is that it would allow Iraq to develop into a successful democracy which would have a significant impact on the power of the terrorist organisations and the countries that support them.

Why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia, which has far greater ties to Al Quaeda, and from where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from? There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with Al Quaeda, no matter how much Bush implies that there is. Except for some Palestinian terrorists, Saddam Husseing has never harboured any terrorists, why not attack a country that did, so there was the possibility of actually killing some terrorists, as opposed to just innocent people.

The idea that Iraq, as an American backed state, will help combat terrorism is stupid. Israel, Saudi Arabia - American backed states at the heart of terrorism today. It is exactly this sort of imperialism, America trying to dictate it's foreign policy on the other side of the world through puppet states, that has generated most of the resentment towards America.

Artemis has covered the CIA's involvement in Afghanistan. I don't know where you got this idea that the CIA was only supporting (throught the ISI) some of the people fighting the Russians. None of the references I have seen have mentioned any such distinction. Is it just wishful thinking on your part?

The CIA were training anyone who would fight the Russians, and Osama Bin Laden left the region to become the leader of one of the most successful terrorist organisations in the world. If the CIA didn't train him, who did?

[Mr Custard]

A little history lesson... The CIA did not directly fund bin Laden or his group, they instead used Pakistan's 'inter-services intelligence' as a go between, and through them trained the Mujahadeen

Ad as I have already pointed out, Bin Laden did not fight for the Mujahideen. He fought for a group of Islamists who entered Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet army.

That's why it doesn't make sense that Iraq was detsoryed because it had a 'bad man' in charge but the Taliban were allowed to control Afghanistan through terror for so many years without the US batting an eyelid. Among those who received training were the volunteers recruited and directly supported by bin Laden.

The fact he was a bad man wasn't the sole reason, and even if it was it still makes sense, being as it was before the US government realised that a serious policy change was required. The argument that we should not have removed Saddam from power because there were others like him makes a lot less sense. By similar standards we should free all imprisoned criminals because there are some we have been unable to catch.

The US's violent stampede into Iraq; the 'control by force and destroy anyone who gets in our way' has probably just strengthened their resolve and demonstrated that their enemy, when it comes to methods of solving problems, is little better then they are.

Or more likely it has demonstrated that the US in no longer going to sit back and wait to be attacked.

Your reasons for this don't work. The poorer don't suddenly have a surplus of money because they got a tax return.

I never said they did. The purpose of the tax cut was to boost the stagnant economy. If enough people buy new handbags then the handbag manufacturer will need to employ more people to make them and the expensive boutique will need more staff to sell them. Admittedly there are hundreds of other factors at work which could scupper the plan, but the fact that a plan may not work does not mean that anyone implementing it is a liar. The fact that the American economy is now doing incredibly well doesn't exactly hurt the theory either.

It does make him a liar because his claim was not conditional on the evidence he's received, it was paraded as a factual statement.

So he made the odd statement without first giving a 20 minute lecture about how intelligence works. He also repeatedly said that his views were based upon evidence provided by the intelligence community. People often generalise and don't feel the need to make every single aspect of what they are saying clear every time they say it. Doesn't make them liars.

The teams also found no evidence that Iraq had was continuing or had resumed chemical, biological or nuclear weapons developments.

They may well not have done,  however the teams who were sent in after the war did, as is clearly stated in their interim report. Unfortunately the media yet again decided to ignore this in favoure of the sections that they could spin to show that their anti-war position was justified.

Do you really think that's as far back as this goes?

With regards to the American government realising that the old ways don't work, yes. The 9/11 commission evidence suggests that there may have been a vague possibility that they were possibly planning to take the fight more seriously before America was attacked, but I suspect it was all talk.

That's a mind-bogglingly frightening position to take. You bloody well should consider why somebody believes what they say, especially if they're in a position of power, and moreover if they are talking about destroying other people! Are you content that why ever he believed it, he happened to get it right so that's ok?

I don't feel it neccessary to make Ad Hominem attacks on people based on religious beliefs that they I don't hold. IF he want's to think he is doing God's work then, fine. It's what he actually believes this work to be that matters.

Yet in March 2003, just days before they were forced to evacuate, the weapons inspectors submitted a report that indicated Iraq was reacting positively to inspections

As they had been doing for months. Why should we believe that Saddam would suddenly keep his word? He had repeatedly broken virtually all of the conditions of resolution 1441, along with all the previous resoultions passed against him. Keeping the inspectors there indefinitely while he continued to defy the UN would have been a complete waste of time.

International law recognises the sovereignty of nations independant of how their governments are constituted and almost independantly of the crimes they commit against their own people.

International law seems to be the argument that the anit war crowd fall back on when their arguments are revealed to make no sense. Unfortunatley international law doesn't exist, or at least not in the way they think it does. People have been using the phrase for the last year or two in the hope that it will be considered to be synonymous with national law, but there is no possible way that the structure used in national law could ever work in the international community. The closest we have to law between nations are treaties. But if one party decideds to break the treaty, then the only thing that this means is that the treaty no longer applies, and anyway, the treaties only applie to those that agree to sign them. The only way a country can be prevented from doing something it really wants to do is if a more powerful one sees it in its best interests to stop it. Pretending that the likes of the UN have any real power is pointless.

There was an alleged offer to hold elections in Iraq, relayed by a Labanese-American businessman to Richard Pearl. While the offer was improbable, it was dismissed out of hand; rejected without serious scrutiny

It was dismissed out of hand because no one was stupid enough to believe it. Do you honestly think that the Saddam would relinquish power in such a waY? He had been under pressure for a decade, but his position had not changed, and offers such as these were meant as a distraction; a delaying tactic in the hope that if he draggewd everything out for long enough the American people would lose interest. the Us was not willing to wait for the UN to weight the pros and cons because that is all the security council ever does, and it is likely it would have gone on indefintely.

Have you read the staff statements and interim reports produced by the 9/11 commission? If the CIA and FBI had been doing their job with adequate support from the highest levels of the Pentagon, many things may well have been spotted that would have caused 9/11 to at worst have been delayed. "They might attack us" fails to provide justification for invading other countries.

I have indeed read the reports, which say that while the US government  had to shoulder a certain amount of blame for the state of the intelligence community, there was still nothing that would have allowed them to exactly predict the attacks. And even if they had, it would only have been a matter of time before another was tried, and eventually the terrorists would get lucky.

If a stable democracy comes out of all this and prospers, it may be fair to say that the cost of the lives lost in the war was outweighed by the greater good to Iraqis as a whole, but this still would not ethically justify the war

So even if the benefits far outwieght the risks, the war would still not be justified. How exactly does that make any form of sense?

Why Iraq?

Basically, because it was relatively easy. Iraq had an sufficient army and enoujgh respect amongst their neighbours that an easy victory would make the other dictators in the Middle East incredibly nervous, but not sufficent that the invasion would end up as a long drawn out war with massive casualties, something that could potentially happen with an attack on Saudi Arabia or Iran (there is also the problem that a war with the Sauds would destroy the global economy). There were other helpful factors such as the fact that a large majority of Iraqis wanted the US to liberate them and would be willing to build a better society, and that the country's people were sufficiently oppressed to make the other oppressed people in the region notice that their lives were visibly improved.

there was also the fact that Saddam actually supported terrorism. Although the Saudi Govenrment has tended to turn a blind eye to their activies there has never been any evidence to suggest they are actively supporting them. In fact Bin Laden had no great love for them either, so it would be in their best interests to crack down on Al Queda and other similar groups - there are actually some signs that this is now happening but unfortunately it still seems to be somewhat half hearted.

[Artemis]

Bin Laden did not fight for the Mujahideen. He fought for a group of Islamists who entered Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet army.

As MojoMojo pointed out, never has there been a discintion made between who the ISI provided services to. Yes what you say is correct but it is not enough to counter what CIA operatives have themselves comfirmed, with Milton Beardman (CIA) confirming that in respect of CIA funding through the ISI, bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington.

The argument that we should not have removed Saddam from power because there were others like him makes a lot less sense. By similar standards we should free all imprisoned criminals because there are some we have been unable to catch.

How is that? By logical standards, the analogy would be that we should catch the criminals that are doing the worse crimes. If Bush was exclusively playing the humanitarian, he'd have difficulty showing that the Iraqi government was commiting greater crimes then other repressive regimes like Burma, North Korea or Turkmenistan. Why choose Iraq over the others? Because of the "threat"? Hardly.

People often generalise and don't feel the need to make every single aspect of what they are saying clear every time they say it. Doesn't make them liars.

Well I'm glad you agree that Bush was inconsistent. Let's pretend for a second though that Bush had mentioned intelligence every time he and his war-cabinet said that WMDs were in Iraq. Can we really call that just? Is it acceptable to hide behind the word 'intelligence' when it is apparent that by definition of the word, the evidence was anything but? Bush should have had enough to go on to be certain that the country had WMDs, otherwise how on earth could he claim the country was a threat? Even if he wasn't sure of all the specific details, he at least had the opportunity to be sure of that. Powell coming out and admitting that the evidence was shaky was unacceptable considering the cost of the decisions. Rumsfeld speculating that the weapons may have been destroyed previous to the war in connection with justifying the claim that they existed and that was enough to go to war is remarkable. I don't think many people can follow the logic of going to war over weapons that don't exist, lest the non-existent weapons fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda.

They may well not have done,  however the teams who were sent in after the war did, as is clearly stated in their interim report.

Ah, yes. That completely trustworthy US appointed weapons team. I'm sure they had no reason to say that. They certainly haven't provided any evidence.

I don't feel it neccessary to make Ad Hominem attacks on people based on religious beliefs that they I don't hold. IF he want's to think he is doing God's work then, fine. It's what he actually believes this work to be that matters.

It would only be an Ad Hominem attack if the point I was making had no bearing on the truth of the claim being made. Unfortunately (or should that be fortunately?), the concept of evil does not exist outside of the reasoning the religious use to make the claim that someone else is evil. What the terrorists did was abhorant, for sure, but for those of us who do not believe in such a concept as 'evil' or for that matter 'sin', it is pretty obvious that people like Bush and Cheney (who only started calling them evil after Bush did) are attaching their own religious terminonlogy rather then stating an objectively fact. Either they do it because they believe it, or more likely they do it because it fits in nicely with what people can grasp - a cheap and easy to grasp opinion which can be asserted without proper reasoning and argument. People are killed on 9/11 and it is called 'evil' because lots of people believe in such a thing; this is then used as some kind of ultimate defense though in practice far more innocent lives were lost in the CIA sponsored war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, not to mention innocent lives lost in the most recent Iraq war.

International law seems to be the argument that the anit war crowd fall back on when their arguments are revealed to make no sense.

I don't believe you have been successful in revealing any argument against the war in Iraq as nonsense, and international law, which you are welcome to read about here does have its foundations in treaties and agreements which can currently be enforced through the International Court of Justice. The US has made agreed to abide by this practice of resolution since it joined the UN nearly 60 years ago. Certainly if any other state were simultaneously developing nuclear weapons and launching pre-emptive strieks against other countries, the UN would be taking a very keen interest. As can be expected of a man who does what he wants regardless of established principles and procedures, Bush has taken pro-active efforts to protect himself against international law. He withdrew Clinton's signature from the Rome Statute, assuring the congress would never be able to ratify their accountablity to the International Criminal Court, despite the fact that 62 other countries have not only signed but ratified it to date, including the UK.  Regardless of the fact that world leaders can certainly be tried under international law, let's have a look at your argument. "You can't stop me" is not only indefensible as a justification for flouting what is established practice in the reasoning for starting a war, it is also unethical and dangerous. What example does it set? What can now be defended on the basis that America started an unprovoked war based on assertions that were false?

So even if the benefits far outwieght the risks, the war would still not be justified. How exactly does that make any form of sense?

The war would not be ethically justified simply on the utilitarian judgement that the tragic loss of human life was outweighed by the benefit to Iraqis as a whole for several reasons, but most notably because there are other questions to consider, for example the issue of international law and the morally dubious area of acting on one's own wishes in contrast to the established procedures of organisations the offending nation is a member of.

Why Iraq?

Basically, because it was relatively easy.

When all else fails, eh?

[Borboski]

I see I've missed the boat on this thread, but I would like to post some quotes from the ever wonderful and contrarian Christopher Hitchens.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. 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.

Yes Chris I agree quite wholeheartedly. He'd like to think he's a polemicist, but he isn't - he's dumbing down political critique and tarnishing the moral highground the left can claim in the face of inaccurate and partisan reportage.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.

Certianly, Moore is flippant and he is not a serious person.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (...), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

And finally this:

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

[WoShade]

Moore was wrong about Afghanistan: they were harbouring terrorists. It doesn't make him wrong about the Iraq stuff. For all Hitchens' froth-mouthed outrage and the right wing campaign to discredit this film, usually by attacking Moore or gnawing at a few peripheral fact-bones, the central skeleton of the film is sound. I think this is what pisses many pro-war types off.

[king mob]

Theres quite a amazing website called Moorewatch which really has to be seen.

It contains a link to this tasteful T shirt.



Nice and rational isn't it?


But the site contains a link to this site.

Read the messages for a real scream.

[Pinball]

"Bush: killing for a better tomorrow"

"Iraq: dying to be free"

[New World Order]

I'll just leave this Bit Torrent Link here then.  

http://drgorilla.no-ip.com:6969/index.html?page=1

It's not Moores new film, although it does have his old ones on page two and a load of other interesting material.

[mikeyg27]

Moorewatch and Thankyoutony.

Oh. My. God.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at "moore-on"

[VorpalSword]

Surely Michael Moore must want Bush to be re-elected. Otherwise he'd have nothing to make films and write books about.




I think he's a tosser, anyway.

[Regular John]

I watched it, I enjoyed it (if that is the right word)

Whether it was entirely objective or not is really not my main concern, the serious concern should be the obviously huge amount of self-serving by those that hold the reins in the most powerful nation in the world. At the expense of those that have no way to fight against it other than with their votes (which may or may not be counted anyway)

[Bernard]

I really don't think he's motivated by money at  all, I mean he's hardly the most flamboyant person in the world is he? He looks like he's been wearing the same clothes since his "TV Nation" days.

Ah, you see, he doing the film for a new wardrobe then. The utter bastard.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

Surely Michael Moore must want Bush to be re-elected. Otherwise he'd have nothing to make films and write books about.

He got along all right during the eight years of Clinton, didn't he? And it's not like Bowling for Columbine needed a Republican in the White House to be made, I think there's like ten seconds of stuff in there about Bush. His next movie is about the U.S. health care system and it doesn't matter if Kerry gets elected in November or not, that's something that isn't going to be fixed anytime soon. There's lots of subjects like that out there. I don't think Moore is naive enough to believe that all the problems in America just go away when the Democrats are in charge.

[king mob]

There's a wonderful interview with Bush on Irish tv here.

If you cant be arsed wading throught the show go to about 20 minutes in and you should fine the interview.

[WoShade]

here's a wonderful interview with Bush on Irish tv here

It doesn't say much for the rigour of US political debate. The interviewer could hardly be said to be rude or even particularly incisive, yet Bush got tetchy when she mildly pressed him to actually answer her qs instead of parroting his non-sequiturs.

[king mob]

here's a wonderful interview with Bush on Irish tv here

It doesn't say much for the rigour of US political debate. The interviewer could hardly be said to be rude or even particularly incisive, yet Bush got tetchy when she mildly pressed him to actually answer her qs instead of parroting his non-sequiturs.

Thats what amazing about it, shes being fairly easy on him & he's getting pissy and defensive at every question.

Can you imagine Paxman interviewing Bush?

That would be wonderful.

[king mob]

So has anyone managed to get a ticket for this for today?

Its bloody sold out in Bristol & i cant be arsed going miles to see it.

[terminallyrelaxed]

Just saw this at the Bit Torrent Odeon last night - and I was quite impressed. All I heard about before was how biased it was, and Moore saying it was both fact and opinion, but it all sat pretty well with me. I agree that theres no news for the non-American viewer, much of what I saw last night I already knew as fact or accepted as likely.
Indeed it was far from balanced but thats the point isnt it, to make Americans angry, maybe wake a few of them up....
Also read some interesting articles online at the Guardian and BBC about how  "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" the film probably doesnt really exist, and that Moore has hired a team of people to check the facts in the film, to prepare for anyone who tries to sue him - I gather he's gagging for someone to try and sue him, to try and contest any of the things he presented as fact - I personally would love that, I wonder what else would come out in the wash if any of the conspirators tried to disprove anything he's said....

[The Man With Brass Eyes]

I saw it at the weekend.

most of it's been covered here in this large thread...

I don't think it was as funny or as comprehensive as Columbine.  BfC had that initial issue of the Columbine shootings, but it cast the net so much furthur than F9/11 seemed to.  I liked the way BfC looked at the whole American culture which seems to be established on ignorance & fear... leading up the pro-violence gun lifestyle, with the parts of the Media instilling fear into the population (and as Marylin Manson points out - fuels the fear to incite people to consume)...
F9/11 builds on the content of Columbine but it's not as varied.

Still a film with something to say.

The footage of Bush in the classroom when he's told about the 2nd plane hitting... so eerie and surreal.  He just sits there and resumes reading the book to the kids.  He has this look of "what the fuck should I do?!"... looked like a lost child who'd just shit on the dog.  Very disturbing.  It was like a fantasy.
I really would like to know what exactly Mr Bush was thinking.

Seeing the repeats of George W in the classrooms and his speeches saying how they should uphold peace and freedom made me very angry.  If Micheal Moore's claims are true of the links between the Taliban and the Bushes... I really would like to see this guy W in a blender.

The footage of the military playing "burn motherfucker" rock songs in the tanks - made me white.

When they mentioned how all aircraft were grounded on September 11th... noone could leave the country... noone at all... except the Tali ban guests who were granted half a dozen flights out the country....
I laughed so hard for about 2 minutes flat.  You can't script this shit.

This film certainly stirs a large array of emotional reactions.
I loved the George Orwell quote at the end of the film.

[The Man With Brass Eyes]

which is this:

"

It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact.

"

[butnut]

which is this:

"

It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact.

"

Is it from 1984? I had a hunch, but don't have a copy to check.

[The Man With Brass Eyes]

yeah.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

FUCKING Hull Odeon aren't showing it, and the only place nearby that is showing it isn't accessible by public transport.

Why aren't they showing it? It's clearly going to make them a lot more money than showing FUCKING Around The World In 80 Days on two screens starting every half-hour. Christs bulbous cock.

I went to see 'Mean Girls' instead, which was ok, a bit diluted as you'd expect from 12A, but reasonably enjoyable. Clearly not for my gender though.

[Purple Tentacle]

The film is absolute bilge.

"I wonder what he's thinking... is he thinking 'I wish I didn't have so many Saudi friends?"

Michael Moore REALLY hates the Saudis... they're not all terrorists you know, prick... he also has a major problem with Saudi investment in America.  Fair enough if that's the way you feel, but it's not right to mix it in with a film about terrorism... the fact that the Saudis have investments in America, and Osama bin Laden, an exiled Saudi, attacked the WTC are not necessarily connected, it's a film of implication, subtext and blinkered soap-boxing.

[The Man With Brass Eyes]

"I wonder what he's thinking.

Yes but the Bushes were bedfellows with the Saudis and Taliban family.

that is a more integral link than connecting the Trade Centre attacks on... say.. the Iraqies.

you explain to me what George Bush is thinking it that classroom.

Odeon aren't showing it...

Odeon is becoming a shit cinema chain.  They stick all the "popular" Hollywood bilge on and don't bother showing the other (good) stuff.

[Purple Tentacle]

I have no idea what George Bush was thinking, and the point is NEITHER does Michael Moore!

The difference is that I haven't made up something and presented this conjecture as fact.

[DistantAngel]

I don't think he was presenting his theory on what Dubya's thoughts were as fact.  To me, he was merely vocalising what all of us would be thinking on viewing that clip, and that is, "What is going through your head, George?"  I, like Michael Moore, like most people, want to know exactly what he was thinking at that moment, because it was clearly important enough for him to not move for over 7 minutes.

The oft given excuse is that he didn't want to alarm / worry / upset the kids ... bollocks ... he's the president ... all he has to do is excuse himself, tell them that something very important has come up that he has to deal with, and that that's part of the job of being president ... he could promise to return as soon as he is able, and the kids would understand - no one would be pissed, especially when they saw the news that night and realised why he had to go.  If America was under attack, the president, a potential target whom the world KNEW was doing a photo-op in a school, was risking the lives of everyone in that school by staying put.

I think the most likely thought running through that man's head would have been: "oh shit, what do I do now?"  When you see the footage of him, particularly that clip and the "erm, so-and-so's coming over and we're going to be working on some, erm, initiatives", it proves beyond any doubt that the guy clearly hasn't got any idea what he's doing.  The world is being run by those around him, and in that moment he was in the spotlight and he knew it - nobody was coming in to tell him what to do, and because he didn't know whether he was expected to stay put or get out of there sharpish, he just sat there like a dumbass, hoping someone would sort it all out for him (like everyone else has bailed him out of the shit his entire life).

And I don't think Michael Moore hates the Saudis ... I think he, like many people, has a big problem with the fact that they have one of the worst human rights records going, 15 of the 11/9 terrorists were Saudis, and the Bush family loyalty has always been for them over the people who elected the two Georges ... and it's this that has influenced the catastrophic foreign policy of the US that is making the world a more dangerous place, has turned all of Americas friends into enemies, and is killing innocent people on a daily basis.  The fact that Bush is willing to kill near 1000 US troops and injure 5000 more on some spurious bullshit reason, and for what?  For his friends ... for his business associates ... for making sure they're never brought to book for anything ... and to make money for himself, his family, and his friends.

It's like your best mate raping your missus, and then beating up some random guy in the street because, well, "he's me mate, innit?  I can't beat up me mate!"

[DuncanC]

Michael Moore REALLY hates the Saudis... they're not all terrorists you know, prick... he also has a major problem with Saudi investment in America.

Nah, he's not saying "the Saudis are all terrorists". He's saying "the majority of the hijackers were Saudi and the attacks got a lot of support from there (not to mention human rights abuses according to Amnesty, since that's a big part of the current retroactive "justification" for Iraq), but the US government is utterly ignoring them because of all the lovely lovely money involved, while none of the hijackers were Iraqi and the link between Iraq and 9/11 is incredibly tenuous and debatable at best, and certainly not enough to partially justify war over."