After watching Fahrenheit 9/11 and taking copious notes, think about the arguments Moore presents that are problematic.
Now visit one of these websites below and read the entire article (or read both if you are so inclined).
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
After reading the article, what are some important points that you noted? What is the author's opinion on the arguments presented by Moore? Is the information the author presents verifiable? Is the author himself a credible source of information? FIND OUT by researching who the author is.
What, do you think, is the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11? What pieces of information presented by Moore do you think is valuable? End with any final words of your own.
Here is a link for the resources used in Moore's film
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16
As with the last blog, you will need to write at least 3 paragraphs to address all the elements required for this blog.
98 comments:
Some interesting points that I noted about what the author said was how Michael Moore did almost no research on what is actually happening, how Mike exaggerates all the vacation time he shows Bush taking in the video, and finally how Moore tries to turn everything good or bad on Bush. For example, when Bush sat frozen in the classroom after he learned the Towers had been hit a second time. He says that Bush didn't really care, or that it wasn't a priority to him. But, if Bush would have jumped up suddenly ready to go to war he would have said Bush was a war-mongering man who entered the war on a whim.
The information that the author presents is definitely verifiable. He quotes the movie, the New York Times, even other people. He provides links and sources so that you yourself may check up on his research. Along with that, he puts his word as a citizen on the line that when he quotes someone and adds (...), he is being 100% honest to God. I believe he is a credible source mainly because he's obviously done his homework, and because he's made so many other movies and documentaries.
The main purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 I believe was a little personal vendetta by Michael Moore. I think that in the video when Bush insulted Moore and told him to get a real job, that set Moore off in order to show Bush that he was the one who had the job and that Bush was a failure as a president. To back this up I want you to recall how many times he shows the same clips of Bush golfing and "vacationing." I think I counted one of the clips coming up three times. Also in the article by Christopher Hitchens, it stated something about Moore saying, "I will sue if you insult me or my pet." This makes perfect sense that when Bush said go get a real job, that Moore would go off on some personal vendetta to try and make Bush look bad.
I personally did not enjoy watching this film because I felt that Michael Moore was trying way too hard to bash on President Bush. I think most of his arguments were from his personal views, instead of fact based truth. I think some things that Moore showed in his film were a little over exaggerated, for example, I highly doubt that President Bush was on vacation as many times as Moore says. Being that he's the president of the United States, there just isn't that much free time for him to do so. Moore also goes too far by exploiting Bush's military past. Though his military past shocked most people, it wasn't Moore's place to release this, in a way to "gossip" about the president.
I read the first article and found that this author actually knew what he was talking about. He presented the information in a way that wasn't completely from personal view point, and more fact based. He also made his sources more noticable, as Moore did not explain where he got his information from. Whether Christopher Hitchens opposes Bush or not, he doesn't make his politial views the main argument in his article, which makes it easier for anybody to read.
I think Moore so was obviously against Bush, and his documentary showed that way too much. I think that no matter what, our president is in charge of our country, and we should support and trust that he is making decisions in the best interest of the people. I think the film didn't do any justice to president Bush, because it didn't show anything that he did good while for our country. There was too many personal attacks on him, that the film held little educational value. I think that Moore just holds a strong grudge against Bush, and wanted to make a film that totally bashed on him.
Fehrentheit 9/11 was another movie that was made to give a view of America as deceitful and dishonest, when in reality, these two words are the only two that can perfectly fit this movie itself.
The information that was given through Christopher Hitchens
was very interesting. One point that he made that captured my attention the most was when Moore showed Bush on vacation doing nothing but sitting in a chair relaxing. THis shot was shown in less then a second, a closer and more thorough look would have shown the man sitting beside him was the Prime Minister of the UK, definately not someone who would just be visiting on a vacation spot with the President of the United States.
When it comes to discussing whether Christopher Hitchens
is a valid source or not, I dont waste my time. The reason I state this is because anyone could take this man and make him look like a crook and invalid man with false information and a bad background. Heck, lets not even stop there, Michael Moore or another Conspiracy theorist could even connect him with Osama bin Ladden himself if one really desired to. The point I am trying to make is this, polotics is something that is very dangerous amoung society. Men stand against Men in debates and hate showing how wrong one side is towards the other, or how bad a president is against his own country. Michael Moore is a man who hates the government obviously, and I find it an absolute waste of time to sit and listen to the lies twisted with truth that this man tries to bring forth. I feel that to try and debate against him is even a waste of time, for one can come against my own arguments and we could get no where. This is how polotics work, arguments with no progress. THis is why democrats and republicans are so secluded from each other. Look at the presidential debates, the two sides sit completely apart and barely cast a glance at one another unless it is in absolute hate and rejection. Forgive me if I am going off into nothing, all I am trying to show is that man has so seperated into dissunity, that there are now those who despise their own country, like Michael Moore, and pursue an empty life that fulfills them in no way to only despise and hate the government.
In my opinion, this article that I read was ultimatly expressing the fact that no matter who is President at the time, or what they are doing, there will be someone on the other side trying to find one thing to bash him. We talked about this in class when, during the movie, Michael Moore used bits of speeches or something President Bush said to better fit his point of view. Those clips could have been used in any context, however the way that Michael Moore put it together made President Bush look like a bad man. Fahrenheit 9/11 was so badly bashing the President, that it was purely rediculous.
One point that really made me think was, how could Michael Moore get a hold of President Bush's Air Force record, when the authorities (whoever they may have been) would not release them publicly? However when they did release them, they had names blotted out. Why was Michael Moore's copy perfect, and how did he get it? Michael Moore himself is really not a reliable source of information.
In both Fahrenheit 9/11, this article, and the documentary Loose Change, it all looks like they did their homework, and research. However many of them are out of context. I don't necessarily agree with watching or reading other peoples opinions on matters this large. People need to do their own research, and come up with their own conclusions, instead of being lied to by various people who have the means of greater advertising.
Some interesting points I found was that Moore’s views were very one sided he wasn't interested in giving straight facts instead he left out facts and gave partial truths in order to make our government look bad. The author's opinion on the arguments presented by Moore was that Moore distorted information to make things worse than they appeared and that he was lying to make our government look bad.
I think that the author presents verifiable information in this article it seems to me that Christopher Hitchens has actually done research on the things that he is talking about instead of compiling bits and pieces of information to make what you have to say sound like the nobler cause like Mike Moore has done in Fahrenheit 9/11.
I think that the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to try and get people to think of President Bush as a lazy and horrible president. Michael Moore obliviously does not like our president or the decisions he makes which makes him an unreliable source I am not saying a person that likes the president is a reliable source I am saying that this video was solely made from Michael Moore’s dislike for our president, so he is going to show only his faults as a result you get a very one sided video that bashes on our president. If he wanted his video to be a more successful he should have given facts instead of partial truths and his speculations.
After reading approximately 5/8 of the article by the cockney lad Christopher Hitchens, I came to the conclusion that his arguments were no better than what he was arguing against. At first Chris begins throwing down fierce vocabulary which I believe is him trying to intimidate his audience. However, after some extensive babbling rants he begins to act like a child in the sense that he practically attempts to provoke a fight with Moore.
"However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. 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."
OOOOOOooooooooo, it appears someone got a little too much sand in their undies from playing in the sand box.
One of the author's uppercuts is the way which Moore presents his film. It appears many people detest Moore's music choice. I personally think the music was hilarious and fit well with what Moore was trying to get across (which will be mentioned some number of lines down). The author does make some worthy points about Moore's stance on certain issues, however many of them are irrelevant; such as the number of troops deployed into Afghanistan. I agree with the author, however, that Moore strategically placed certain clips of footage and text in a fashion that may persuade the ignorant mind of America to jump to conclusions.
Aside from all the rabble, I believe the main purpose of the film was to bring attention to the idiocy and corruptness that is George W. Bush, as well as his possible ties with the Saudi royal family (which just emphasizes the former). It is definitely evident the bias towards Bush that coats this film, but isn't that why he made the movie in the first place? However, I believe Moore could have been more professional if he really wanted to flame Bush. I cannot say which pieces of information I find valuable because I seldom believe what the news or any form of media tells me upfront; that, or I could just care less. Many people dislike Michael Moore for the same reasons they dislike Hillary Clinton - no reason. Anyone is hated if they have the least bit of guts and try to change something. Regardless, if the viewer of Fahrenheit-911 is a considerably educated person, they will look past all of the irony and sarcasm to see the real picture. Our candy coated government is not what we perceive it to be.
Watching Fahrenheit 9/11 provided me with a comical break from the tedious regularities of school. This is not to say that I was snickering over Michael Moore’s extremely bias position towards President Bush and his administration, but more of the satirical way it was presented, I especially enjoyed the well placed sound clips.
Now, I must advance. I agree with Christopher Hitchens that the information provided in the film was randomly placed and proved little more than Moore’s contempt towards President Bush. However, some other points by Hitchens I disagree with, such as America’s invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq being justified. Hitchens brings up attacks and kidnappings, prior to the events of 9/11, “proving” that these countries hate the West. However, he fails to suggest that perhaps the citizens within the countries did not want us interfering with their affairs. He also mentions the massacre of the Kurds. This event is irrelevant and has no relation to the attacks of 9/11 – other than that they both sucked. Events such as the massacres of the Kurds occasionally take place in history, although it is unfortunate, it is part of the natural evolution of a country. After all it has happened in America and other “civilized” countries. Also, if Saddam Hussein acquired weapons of mass destruction, it is unnecessary to invade Iraq for it. Time, money and resources could be saved by securing the boarders of a threatened country at home so an attack will not even penetrate the boarders. Not to mention we have a large stockpile of our own. Maybe someone should invade us.
The way Moore presented the film was unprofessional and bias. However to be offended by this film is ludicrous. Any open minded individual would enjoy Moore’s satire and look past his low blows (such as comparing all Bush supporters to Britney Spears). However closed minds and ignorance is prevalent in an MTV culture. So Moore must either cure the population’s ignorance, or present his case in a more professional way if he wants results. The former is near impossible, but the ladder is not. At the least, the documentary could bring light to the fact that perhaps our leaders are not all trustworthy and their decisions may be flawed. For anyone to blindly follow a president just for the fact that they are president is a fool.
"It is always easier to believe than to deny. Our minds are naturally affirmative." - John Burroughs
The author (Christopher Hitchens) certainly disagreed with Moore and Moore’s movie. He seemed childish to me in his writing; insulting Moore quite often and even trying to pick a fight almost with him…well a debate. All he did was write about how Moore overlooked this and that and is a coward…etc. His information wasn’t cited, or at least I could not find it, so who am I to know his information is even correct? They are both the same man in a way, with different views.
I agree with Hitchens about the fact that Moore frames certain events to his advantage and to (in a way) falsely persuade people that Bush is an idiot and is in ties with the Saudis. He would use parts of clips to his advantage, use satirical and comical music or tone, and clearly does not provide any information that would possibly go against what he is presenting.
His movie in my opinion, like Hitchens article, is almost a waste of time to watch (or read)…all it does is present information that would cause me to be single-minded and biased. If he would have added information that helps me decide for myself, rather than forcing his ideas on me…I might have enjoyed the movie a little more. Bashing is just childish, why not take is from a more respectful way and present two sides and not be satirical or plainly rude (referring to both article and movie).
The author of Unfairenheit 9/11 (Christopher Hitchens)is clearly against Moore and his views of President Bush. Hitchens criticized Moore for his bias editing of his movie, making each move that Bush made look like the worst possible course of action. In his article Hitchens is able to hide his political views(at least more so than Moore) and write an article that either party may read and consider before possible dismission.
As for Fahrenheit 9/11 it is nothing more than bias liberal propaganda. The production of the movie is completely unprofessional and could not be taken seriously by anyone. Moore constantly flaunts his political views adding his two cents without much creditable information.
What I thought that was intresting about the article is how the author tried making Michael Moore look bad. Not many people try to look for Moore's flaws in his work, in speaking of his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.
The author pointed out how Moore pointed out alot of Bush's Vacation time, it is a very good point but the author makes a great point on how there is more to that then Bush's just being on vacation. I personaly liked the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 just because it makes you think about what could have happend and what happend and Moore makes some great points,but so does the author pointing out his flaws.
Michael Moore has made a couple of great documentary's but this one makes you think on two sides of a story. He makes great points on what happend before, during and after 9/11. I think that Parker has a great point on how Bush told Moore to get a real job and it could have well been a personal vendetta just to get back at bush. I liked the film myself, I like being able to look at things from two different sides and specailly if it is something so big like 9/11. It has alot of good info and it is hard to be so sure whats the truth and whats not.
Unfortunately, I didn't get the chance to watch but about 20 minutes of this film. From what I did see, Moore was obviously anti-Bush and his administration.
I suppose I can't say much about the movie in this blog, but I can state my opinion. There will ALWAYS be people who don't like the president, as there will always be people who do like him. Making an entire movie about how wrong and stupid the president is seems like a waste of time to me. One could simply write about that instead of spending so much money traveling, recording, and promoting their movie. Perhaps Moore was just on a ranting rage and wanted to sway others to believe him. What he wanted out of it, who knows? If he thought a movie would get Bush impeached, please someone give Moore a good talking to. Not all people are so inclined to believe everything they hear, especially from someone who is as biased as Moore. Don't get me wrong, I believe that Bush shouldn't have been president, but making a movie about it won't change how stupid he is. Some people are just born that way!
After reading the Article there are multiple points that are quite interesting. First I would like to say that both of the movies we have watched are basically all about consperecy and have very little if any substancial background information. The first point i think is notable is Moore claims President Bush of taking to much free time, but in my oppinion most people need breaks quite often...the President especially. Also how Moore portrayed the Iraqi nation as a calm nice place when really it is a war torn islamic mess and then boom here comes the big bad U.S. This part of the film really is irratating to me. The author really has a substantial opposing arguments to every point that Mr. Moore brings up.
I believe that the information provided in the article is mostly verifiable. The author continuasly has many supporting information whether it is from the New York Times, former Government officials and of course Christopher Hitchens own reserch. I believe the author is very very credible and there is probably no one that could be trusted more. He has worked for many great publishers and is respected throughout the writing community.
I think that the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 is a personal hate by Mr.Moore toward President Bush. Moore took some words that Bush said to heart and wanted to desperately wanted to get back at him. So he twisted some events to make the general public think that our own president was in on murdering 3,000 United States citezens. I think the only credible info in the movie is about the pipline being put in by by the vice presidents company and even that is questionable.
One important note was that the author seemed to use his personal dis-like of Moore as a reason for things. He constantly insults Moore, saying “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.” Also, the author does not use facts to disprove Moores argument. Instead he claims that Moores argument contradicts itself. The authors says “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.” The author then goes on to contradict all the points that Moore made, yet he does not give any cited information. The information the author gives is not verafiable.
The author of this article, Christopher Hitchens, is a literary critic, author and journalist. He has been a columnist at Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, World Affairs, The Nation, Slate, Free Inquiry, and a variety of other media outlets. Hitchens is also a political observer, whose best-selling books have made him a staple of talk shows and lecture circuits. Something that I found ridiculous is that he wrote a book claiming that Mother Teresa was corrupt. I do not feel that these things make him a credible source for information. Anyone can publish books based on their own biased opinions and have them be read by other equally ignorant people. Christopher Hitchens is a critic, which means most of his writing is strictly based on opinion.
I think that the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to show that the United States Government could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, and that the war in Iraq has other motives than to “fight Terrorism.” Fahrenheit 9/11 is important because it adresses the fact that Bush did not win the election but became president anyway. Also it shows who really benefits from war, such as weapons manufacterers and big insurance companies. Fahrenheit 9/11 shows that Bush Sr. is business parteners with Saudi officials, yet we dont invade Saudi Arabia to “spread democracy”. The war in Iraq, like most others, is about power and greed. I feel that the footage from Iraq is very important too, because it shows the true cost of war; the lives of countless innocent people.
After reading the article, some important points are: The author clearly does not agree with Michael Moore, he believes that the 9/11 movie is dishonest and acknowledging that the fact gives it too much credit & attention. He also believes the movie is based on a big lie and misrepresentation.
The author, Christopher Hitchens, refutes Moore's points, but lacks concrete evidence or support without citations. Many of his facts are opinions and the points he brings are also biased. However, the author has a good reputation and has been noted one of the 100 Public Intellectuals. He was ranked #5, but the ranking was partly due to supporters publicizing the vote.
Overall, Fahrenheit 9'11 was created to show that Bush is not a good president and is not doing a good job. Information presented by Moore, such as the connections with the Bush family, American military involvement, oil, and the American political system is important not for the fact Moore was right or wrong, but for the fact he got people talking and made both liberals and conservatives get involved. I can see good points made by Moore and the author. “ This assignment was difficult because I don't like to get involved in politics.”
Some interesting points I found was that Moore’s views were very one sided he wasn't interested in giving straight facts instead he left out facts and gave partial truths in order to make our government look bad. The author's opinion on the arguments presented by Moore was that Moore distorted information to make things worse than they appeared and that he was lying to make our government look bad.
I think that the author presents verifiable information in this article it seems to me that Christopher Hitchens has actually done research on the things that he is talking about instead of compiling bits and pieces of information to make what you have to say sound like the nobler cause like Mike Moore has done in Fahrenheit 9/11.
I think that the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to try and get people to think of President Bush as a lazy and horrible president. Michael Moore obviously does not like our president or the decisions he makes which makes him an unreliable source. I am not saying a person that likes the president is a reliable source I am saying that this video was solely made from Michael Moore’s dislike for our president, so he is going to show only his faults as a result you get a very one sided video that bashes on our president. If he wanted his video to be a more successful he should have given facts instead of partial truths and his speculations.
I believe that September 11, 2001 was a well planned terrorist attack. There was a little bit of confusion about who was involved with the twin towers crash. Who was planned this? Osama Bin Laden and Al Q Quad. In my opinion, this article that I read was ultimately expressing the fact that no matter who is president, or what they are doing, there will be someone on the other hand that would be hating on them because of the success so they will try to get rid of them. Michael Moore used speeches that President Bush said to better fit his point of view. Those clips could have been used in any context; however the way that Michael Moore put it together his resources and facts that made President Bush look like he had to do with the 911. Everything about Fahrenheit 911 was welled planned that it was ridiculous because no one really understood what happened.
What I didn’t understand was that how Michael Moore could get a hold of President Bush's Air Force record when the president hid the evidence, when the authorities wouldn’t release them publicly. However when they did release them, they had names blotted out. How did Michael Moore's get the copy perfect, and how did he get it? What I think is that Michael Moore himself is really not a reliable source of information.
In Fahrenheit 9/11, this article, and the documentary Loose Change, it all looks like they did a lot of research. I like to see other peoples point and that’s how we can get a conclusion because no one tells how things really happened.
Christopher Hitchens, the author of Unfahrenheit 9/11, points out that the movie and book that Micheal Moore produced is a discrace diguesed as important. I agree completely.
Micheal Moore insinuated that George W. Bush has absolutely no idea what he is doing as a president. Christopher Hitchens has lived in Washington D.C. for many years and watched the political aspects of America. He immerses himself in the environment that he writes about. Micheal Moore does not have the credibility that Christopher Hitchens has.
The purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 is to point out the flaws of our president. Also Micheal Moore made it to get money by playing off the natural sceptic in us all. anyone who has bought the movie has funded Moore's communist views.
I find a lot of what the author says to be very true how when opposing someone you can turn whatever you want into a statement that makes them seem incorrect stupid or just plain wrong. But then also if you think about it maybe that is what Christopher Hitchens is doing to Michael Moore, but not many people would come to Moore's defense and back him up.
I do believe that Chris Hitchens is a credible source he obviously knows what he is doing and he has been in the business for quite a while. He has written countless books and been involved in politics for about as long as most presidents. He also has an education that clearly show that his work will be top quality.
My big opposition to people like Moore and Hitchens is the fact that they are so similar yet represent and stand for things that are so far apart. They both bash other people they are both educated and the both know how to persuade people. The only reason Hitchens gets more positive feedback is because he is backing the president. I am not saying I am apposed to that although most people will give someone backing the president much more credibility and far less scrutiny. Also I agree with Jason Carter's quote selection it perfectly exhibits the normal course of action most people think of when listening do documentaries such as Fahrenheit 9/11.
I didn't like watching this movie and I hardly believed anything that Micheal Moore had said. How would he know how many times President Bush took vacations and if he cared about the war? I believe that Moore over-exaggerated his points and that they were more his opinions than true facts.
I read the first article and I felt like this author actually knew what he was talking about. He had more facts than opinions and backed up his information, unlike Micheal Moore. I believe that this author is a credible source because it sounds like he knows what he is talking about and he researched his information first.
I think the purpose of Fahrenheit 11 is to make our President look bad because, like I said before, It was more his opinions than anything else. He also told the some of the same stuff and showed some of the same clips to make it look like he had more reasons to make him look bad. I really dont believe that any of his information was valuable. I believe that the majority of it was lies.
Well Christopher Hitchens (the author) obviously does not agree with Moore nor does not like the movie neither. He was constantly saying something rude towards him. He was saying that the movie was a joke, while his article was the same thing in return just on paper. Both of these men have said things to try and make you believe one thing than another, where to the point you don’t know what to believe. For an example:
*Moore trying to convince you that Bush is a retarded
*Saying that he is intertwined or tangled with the Saudis.
* Where Hitchens tries to say that the entire movie is a joke or phony
*and consistently slamming the door in Moore’s face
I do not believe that that information that the author has brought to the table is verifiable because there are not cites for it nor did he use any examples from anything nor anyone.
I researched Hitchens and the web page said "the truth why Christopher has no credibility".
I personally believe that the purpose to this video was made to show the flaws of our President. As you can see Moore does not like our president and will show and tell you anything to be against him as well. He is just showing you the bad side to him. This film is viewed from two different points. You have the choice to believe what you want. It is definitely hard to choose what is real and what is not.
In his analysis, Hitchens arrives at the conclusion that Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 is nothing but an accurate representation of Moore’s biased, “narrow-minded” perspective toward the Bush administration. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions of course, but I would feel comfortable in saying that Christopher Hitchens is qualified, at least in this respect, to speak about the politics of Moore’s video, given his extensive political background, and respectable educational history. So to answer that part of the question, yes, I believe that the man is capable of effectively critiquing political material. And I didn’t research Kopel’s background, so I can’t speak about him. Now, moving on to the next part, I also have to say yes, many of the rebuttals that Hitchens responds with are indeed verifiable by pursuing a bit of independent research. I’m going to go ahead and actually say that the facts from Hitchens seem to be, on a whole, more credible than those of Moore himself.
I believe that the purpose of the video was similar to the purpose of many other documentaries: to persuade the views and perspectives of thousands of viewers to better coincide with the creator’s ideas. Michael Moore detests the Bush Administration; there’s no secret there, but in order to efficiently express and multiply those feelings, he needs something to present. That something to present turned out to be “Fahrenheit 9/11.” A video in which he criticized the Bush Administration in and out, and no matter how one-sided many of the arguments that he presented were, he attempted to employ them throughout the video for the purpose of spawning dislike toward the nation’s president. There is one valuable piece of information that I personally take from Fahrenheit 9/11, and hope that others would too. That is the fact that no matter how one feels about a certain individual, their neighbor, mother, or president, here in America, they have the right to speak out and let their voice be heard. I could care less if Moore’s video was straight trash (which some think it is). What I see when I watch these types of films, is just another citizen of the United States of America standing up, and utilizing those oh-so amazing rights granted to the people by the constitution. So, in conclusion, I feel that Moore’s sub-par presentation was amusing for the reason that it mustered up so much controversy (which was his desire), and once again reminded me that no matter how we feel, here in America, we CAN, or at least can ATTEMPT (like Moore did) to make a difference without fearing for our lives. : )
I thought this video was very annoying. All Michael Moore did was dis on Bush and how he runs our country. He completely exaggerated everything. He showed absolutely nothing good about what Bush has done for our country. It think even if Bush did something amazing for our country Moore would find something negative to say about it. Like Bush and his "20" vacations. I guarantee they were not all during the war, and Bush probably picked times when it was ok to go play golf. Or in the classroom while reading to the kids. What is he supposed to do? Jump up right then and there and start attacking?!? I don't think so...
Yes Moore did give many of his resources, but whose to know they didn't make these things up. It is just very hard for me to beleive Bush is as bad as Michael likes to make him sound. I am sure some of the things Moore is saying about Bush are true, but come on, he can't be THAT bad. If he were I guarantee he would no longer be running our country.
This video was to dis Bush, that is it! So he may have said something that wasn't exactly nice or appropriate to Moore. So he is going to write a documentary on how horrible the guy is? Come on! I think Moore could definitely have found something more important to make a video about.
I notice many important points in the article I read (the first one). First off, after completely reading the article, I realized that Michael Moore is probably just a cowardly person, who only wants to make Bush look bad. If someone were to come up to him on the streets and argue with him, Moore would just stand there, dumbfounded. I am not against this war by any means, but I am not against Bush either. I finally came to realize that many of the points argued in the video were taken out of context, such as the clip with Bush presumably too stupid to react when the towers got hit and he was reading to a school class. It would have been stupid for him to jump up and scare the kids, so I believe that he did the right thing. It seemed that the video is just a collage of clips of bush and the war taken completely out of context, in order to support Moore's stupid claim.
Personally, I believe that there is not one credible source of information in the world. Everyone who says something puts in their own two cents. The purpose of the article I read was not to persuade me to turn against Moore, but rather to get me to think of how many holed the video has. Moore, on the other hand, is desperately trying to get everyone to hate Bush, just because he himself does not find him fit to run the country. I will tend to believe the article more, just because the author does not attempt to stuff my face with propaganda.
I think that the purpose of the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was to get everyone turned against Bush. The World Trade Center attack and the war in the middle east is just an event that liberal extremest Moore uses to gain some sort of foothold on the other American people. The video should not be taken seriously by any means, mostly because Moore simply cut and pasted some clips together, and then attempted to degrade the president in between.
In my honest opinion, I believe that America is screwed either way. Because we decided to enter this war, we have made it so that if we leave, the anti-American forces will attack on home turf. On the other hand, if we stay, the situation will not get any better, and we will only get the people in the middle east more angry at us, resulting in more American casualties.
The writer of this article was talking about a lot of things that I also noticed when watching Fahrenheit 9/11. Some of these things were how when the movie shows clips of Bush golfing, and someone asks him a question about the war, and Bush answers the question, followed by telling them to "watch this drive." I think that it is completely unfair to make him look like he is lazy, and does not care enough about the war to just answer a question, then go back to what he was doin. He is on a golf course, so yes he is going to hit a golf ball. Another thing that was unfair was how the movie kept on showing clip after clip of Bush on vacation. He is obviously going to take a vacation every now and then. When you are president for 8 years, you can't do paperwork the entire time.
The authors opinion about the movie was streight forward. He felt like Michael Moore was out of line coming out with a movie that is only about one big lie. And he talked about how he really had no real proof that the stuff he was talking about was true. Michael Moore would just use a lot of lies tied together to make it seem like Bush and the govornment is corrupt, and had 9/11 planned. I believe that the information he used is variable to a certain degree. He noted that Bush was attacked to harshly about not taking his presidency serious enough. But I do think after reading the page that Moore used for his resources that Bush did spend a little too much time of vacations, but Fahrenheit 9/11 made it seem like it was worse than it really was.
I think that the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to let the people of America know that Bush is someone who you can not trust, and that he is resposible for 9/11.
that is completely retarted to have the nerve to say that. maybe he did'nt do the best job he could have, but he definently would not plan to kill that many people. Fahrenheit 9/11 made me angry at Michael Moore.
I think that Hitchens had some very good points about Moore, Like the fact that Moore did almost no research on his topic,told partial truths, and left out information and facts to prove his point. But in the same sense Hitchens was hypocritical in saying Moore was wrong to bash our president, when in fact he was doing the same thing by trying to make Moore look bad.
Out of the two I would have to say that Hitchens would be a more reliable source beacause not only did he do his reseach but he proved it my using links, sources,and quotes. He also has more experience in what he does. Moore's movie was mostly stating his opinions and belifs insted of facts and ideas.
I personally thought the movie Fehrenheit 9/11 was funny, persuasive, one sided, and opinionated. The movie was ment to turn americans aginst president Bush and bring the problems of america to the attention of our oblivious citizenz.
The article I read by Christopher Hitchens was a very biased article as well as Moore’s movie. The information that this author provides is very believable but I don’t believe it is verifiable because he is using very personal views towards Moore instead of facts.
Moore’s point of view on the whole terrorist attack of 9/11 was a very biased and personal view. In my opinion I did not enjoy watching the movie because it was very unorganized and it did not provide the necessary evidence to prove that his information was is in fact true or even believable. His information was always perfect; it isn’t hard to edit video clips to change what the person is saying to make your story flow the way you want it to. I believe Moore’s purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to persuade people to think that the president really is a lazy person and is always spending his time on the golf course. He is bashing on the president and his administration; the video clips he edited and the music he played for those certain clips certainly played to his advantage. But what was the president really saying in those clips?
I believe the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was for Moore to personally bash on President Bush in front of the world because he was holding a very personal grudge. Bush told Moore to get a real job; so Moore was obviously offended by that and had to retaliate some how. I don’t believe that any of the information that Moore provided is very valuable because it is so biased and it fits to well to get his point across that it makes it so unbelievable.
Michael Moore is continually bashed for voicing his strong yet sometimes harsh opinions about political leaders such as George Bush. He is accused of lying, manipulating, and even trying to turn Americans against their own country. He is often described as a money-loving, hypocritical liar. In all fairness, what is the difference of him criticizing others and voicing his opinion when that is exactly what others are doing to him and about him? The same “others” that were just accusing him of lying and load-mouthing are doing the same back to him…a little hypocritical don’t you think?
I believe Christopher Hitchens’ is very hypocritical and throughout his article on Michael Moore, his stupidity shows through. “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,” says Hitchens in his article. This sounds entirely like an opinion to me, but when Moore expresses his opinions, it’s the end of the world! All throughout the article “The Lies of Michael Moore,” Hitchens succeeds in providing comment and criticism one after another, but fails to provide any cited information. I see this article as more of a persuasive article based directly upon opinion than an informative article that provides fact after fact.
Christopher Eric Hitchens is a British-American author, journalist and literary critic. Any other information on Hitchens that I could find other than what I have previously listed and that he is currently living in Washington D.C., is very scarce. What I did conclude after reading about Hitchens is that he criticizes, bashes, and attempts to bring down others (much like what the people do in which he criticizes them for). With articles or books titled like “God is Not Great,” “The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan” and “The Lies of Michael Moore,” it is made obvious that he takes his criticism to a personal and “low-blow” level. It always makes me question someone who continually has to bash on others, even if it is a “job”…
In past documentaries’, the babbling fool that is Michael Moore has attacked things like the ethics of various corporations and gun control. However, in his most recent documentary, he attacks his own country and for what ever reason seeks to do more harm to America than any act of terrorism has ever done. In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has step way over the line. Moore, a college dropout of University of Michigan-Flint, chose to undertake the serious task of doing a film on possibly the greatest tragedy in America of the last century. What most don’t know or realize about Moore is the fact that he is a common U.S. citizen. He has no great political education or occupation. He takes what he see’s on the news, makes an opinion on it, and does every possible thing to exaggerate radical ideas in order to sell movies. Moore is a filmmaker, just like Steven Spielberg who will tell anyone his movies are fictional. Spielberg has made movies like the 1982 classic “E.T.” which addressed the idea and possibilities of aliens. It was this wild but openly fictional thought that made the movie an instant classic. Moore knows the wilder the idea is, the more successful the film will be. He used this concept in Fahrenheit 9/11, when he took the tragedy of the September 11th attacks and made a joke of them by exaggerating it in order to sell more movies. Personally, I much rather watch a film about aliens. In doing this he takes advantage of the greatest weakness the American people have, which is political ignorance and arrogance. Very view Americans’ have any type of political education, but still insist they are experts in any debate. It is these people that are so easily swayed by the radical views of conspiracy theories like Fahrenheit 9/11. It is an unfortunate weakness but by all standards completely true.
In reading the article on Fahrenheit 9/11 by Christopher Hitchens, I wouldn’t say I completely agree with him either. However, I do agree when he says how Moore exaggerated details and stretched the truth in some parts. It is obvious that Moore has some sort of vendetta against the American Government and possibly George W. Bush. He allows his bias opinions affect his making of Fahrenheit 9/11 as he continuously makes irrelevant attacks on both George W. Bush and the American Government. The wonderful thing about America is the fact that we have freedom of speech. We can clearly state our opinions both privately and publically and if done in the right manner, face no consequences. Moore’s rendition of September 11th is just one man’s opinion and he is making it heard. His courage for being so public and outspoken about it should be commended, and I only wish more Americans were so politically “excited”.
The Ideas in Moore’s film are poorly backed and it seems as if he just randomly manufactured radical ideas, one after another. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not completely false though, he makes many good points. Some of these good points are true and others just haven’t been proven one way or another. Moore’s film opens the eyes of the American people and their political hearts as well. However, when it comes down to it, he is a conspiracy theorist and in no way can be trusted or viewed as a credible source. I commend Michael Moore for be so politically opinionated, I just wish Fahrenheit 9/11 was made better, because the American people are so easily “brainwashed”.
Some interesting points I found was that Moore’s views were all one sided and had nothing good to say at all. Dont get me wrong bush is a retard but he doesnt do everything wrong. With all his caculations and other crap he still never gave TRUE base facts. The whole movie I thought was crap and after looking where he got his FACTS...from I'm still not a believer.
I like that the author pointed out how Moore pointed out alot of Bush's Vacation time. First of all I'm pretty sure the president of the United States doesn't really have time to be on vacation for to long. Second when he stated that the president froze and did nothing after hearing the second plane hit made him in conciterate to what is happening is crap. Like he really going to act out in front of little kids, no he got his witts together(well for what he has) and made a plan.
The main purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 I believe was a personal view by Michael Moore. It was just a look at how it could of been if we had a piece **************** **** **** ******* *** *** ** rearted government but we are the united states not Iraq. It's okay to put out your opinion but to bash on someone that, yeah is stupid but he did make it to president?
Some interesting points I found was that Moore’s views were very one sided he wasn't interested in giving straight facts instead he left out facts and gave partial truths in order to make our government look bad. The author's opinion on the arguments presented by Moore was that Moore distorted information to make things worse than they appeared and that he was lying to make our government look bad.
I think that the author presents verifiable information in this article it seems to me that Christopher Hitchens has actually done research on the things that he is talking about instead of compiling bits and pieces of information to make what you have to say sound like the nobler cause like Mike Moore has done in Fahrenheit 9/11.
I think that the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to try and get people to think of President Bush as a lazy and horrible president. Michael Moore obliviously does not like our president or the decisions he makes which makes him an unreliable source I am not saying a person that likes the president is a reliable source I am saying that this video was solely made from Michael Moore’s dislike for our president, so he is going to show only his faults as a result you get a very one sided video that bashes on our president. If he wanted his video to be a more successful he should have given facts instead of partial truths and his speculations.
I thought it was interesting how the author tried to make Michael Moore look bad in how he was really one sided and didn't really have all the information to get both sides of the story. He claims so beleive that Bush didn't of doesnt really care about what had happen, because he didn't make a seen or suddenly do something when he found out.
When reading the article I saw that the author did have alot of sources and the facts about that had happen. He had quotes from movies,articles and from poeple as well. The author pionted out things that Moore pointed out, like how much Bush was vacationing and just have a great time relaxing but I believe that theres more to the vocation then just doing it to because he can.
I think that Fahrenheit 9/11 was to make people think that our presedent is a bad and lazy by showing how Moore feels about him. He shows only one side of the story and its all to make Bush look bad. I found the documentary intersting but I still don't know what to beleive really happen. I think its just interesting to see or hear what people think.
After reading this article, I’ve noticed that Michael Moore really doesn’t care whether or not President Bush is a good president or not. All he seems to care about is the fact that it’s President Bush’s fault for 9/11. He doesn’t even seem to give him a chance to defend himself, and according to the article, it stated that Michael Moore did no research on really anything. He seemed to hugely exaggerate on the vacation time taken by President Bush, and would always should random clips of him golfing or saying something very stupid. The whole production of the movie really annoyed me mostly, because of how one-sided it was. I researched the author of the article and found him to be a very reliable source; he cited his sources and had a web page that could prove to the reader that he was up to date on his research.
Giving my personal opinion on this movie, I would have to say that the whole purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to insult Bush constantly. Ever single clip of this movie included a direct attack on President Bush, saying that he would rather spend his time taking vacations, golfing, and talking with the media about what he’s going to do. The only valuable information presented to me through this whole video was when Moore showed the families that lost a loved one in the accident. It would definitely cause people to feel the emotion of those people, and make them want to do something for them. This video did help me discover
some interesting things that happened at 9/11, and made me realize that President Bush isn’t doing all the right decisions for our country, but even though this may be true, I don’t think that showing him golfing or playing little comical music clips every five seconds proves a point either.
An interesing point in reading this article was how the author really made it a point to point out that Michael Moore was point blank telling lies. He did not necessarily have any research to back up his stories about anything. He took every live footage of Bush discussing 9/11 and turned his words in a complete 360. The author points out a lot that Bush was commonly seen on vacation and that michael Moore made it seem that at that exact time he was on vacation was when the attack on the twin towers happens when just like the author stated
An interesing point in reading this article was how the author really made it a point to point out that Michael Moore was point blank telling lies. He did not necessarily have any research to back up his stories about anything. He took every live footage of Bush discussing 9/11 and turned his words in a complete 360. The author points out a lot that Bush was commonly seen on vacation and that michael Moore made it seem that at that exact time he was on vacation was when the attack on the twin towers happens when just like the author stated there was no proof to back up his assumptions that were shown on the video.
The information in the video is very studied upon from Michael Moore. He not ony researched how to make people look at links to so called "real information" but he studied to perfection on how to reply to peoples questions and he had already put his self on the market with other documentaries and movies.
I think the main purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to run Bush's reputation into the ground. I believe Michael Moore was already not a fan of President Bush, so in order to make more Americans so "aware" of what Michael thinks happened on 9/11 he dug really deep into Bush's personal life and changed a lot of what actually came out of his mouth into a bunch of lies to stir people up and cause chaos. To me I think that our country is being delt with the best that we know how to right now, if Michale Moore put himself in Bush's shoes I'm sure we all would be doomed! It's not an easy job to have a lot of people hate you and yet still have to make huge decisions. He oviously is doing the best he knows how to do and trying to avoid the next terrorist attack!
The author clearly does not agree with Michael Moore, he believes that the 9/11 movie is dishonest and acknowledging that the fact gives it too much credit & attention. He also believes the movie is based on a big lie and misrepresentation.
The author, Christopher Hitchens, refutes Moore's points, but lacks concrete evidence or support without citations. Many of his facts are opinions and the points he brings are also biased. However, the author has a good reputation and has been noted one of the 100 Public Intellectuals. He was ranked #5, but the ranking was partly due to supporters publicizing the vote.
Fahrenheit 9'11 was created to show that Bush is not a good president and is not doing a good job. Information presented by Moore, such as the connections with the Bush family, American military involvement, oil, and the American political system is important not for the fact Moore was right or wrong, but for the fact he got people talking.
What I thought that was interesting about the article is how the author tried making Michael Moore look bad. Not many people try to look for Moore's flaws in his work, in speaking of his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.
The author pointed out how Moore pointed out a lot of Bush's Vacation time, it is a very good point but the author makes a great point on how there is more to that then Bush's just being on vacation. I personally liked the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 just because it makes you think about what could have happened and what happened and Moore makes some great points, but so does the author pointing out his flaws.
Michael Moore has made a couple of great documentary's but this one makes you think on two sides of a story. He makes great points on what happened before, during and after 9/11. I think that Parker has a great point on how Bush told Moore to get a real job and it could have well been a personal vendetta just to get back at bush. I liked the film myself, I like being able to look at things from two different sides and especially if it is something so big like 9/11. It has a lot of good info and it is hard to be so sure what’s the truth and what’s not.
What is shown in the videos are recordings of events that really happened but got twisted. Michael Moore knows how to make videos that are very persuasive, that leave you thinking and leave you with great questions. The video leaves you hesitating about the government in which we live in. The video leaves you thinking about how safe we live, about things like whether or not we can trust the government.
The reality is this, that we are all imperfect human. Many of us make mistakes some more serious than others. So one should not judge another person if we would have done the same as the president did his situation. It is the nature of human beings to make mistakes. In human history there has never been heard of a government that lasts forever all fallen in one way or another. Why? For that we are human. So if the president did the things that didn’t seem right, we should not get angry. You might have made the same mistakes possibly even worse. Though everything is not as it seems in this video.
Moore manipulated the videotape clips of videos in placing them in an order that made it seem like president did the things Moore said he did. Moore exaggerated on how long the president took his vacations and when. Moore also did this by taking bits of the presidents’ speeches and placed them in the video in a way that made his beliefs seem true. One way are another, Moore would have criticized the president. If the president had taken the decision to go to war immediately, Moore would have accused the president of a war enthusiast. So either way Moore would have tried to make the president look bad.
A point that I noted was “Farenhiet 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness.” Another point that I also noted was A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and yet more-contradictory claims.
I think that the opinion is that Morres video is discrase to the United States. It is a supid video and Morre is full of crap.
I think that the author is a good source. The reason why is because I believe in what he says and it sounds good.
I really don’t there is really a purpose to the video. Besides Morre wanting to say a bunch of Bull-Crap and try and make the United States look bad. I also don’t think that any of the information on that video was useful. So, basically this video had no use and no purpose. Who ever thinks that our government is hiding that kind of stuff from us, and thinking that 9/11 was done by the government . Someone has some issues
Some extraordinary points that I noted about what the biographer said was how Michael Moore did almost no investigation on what is essentially happening, how he overstates all the vacation time he shows Bush taking in the video, and at last how Moore tries to turn everything good or bad on Bush. For example, when Bush sat unmoving in the classroom after gaining the knowledge of the Towers had been hit a second time, he says that Bush truly didn't care, or that it wasn't a main concern to him. If Bush would have leaped up abruptly ready to go to war he would have said Bush was a war promoting man who entered the war on an impulse.
The author shown information that is absolutely demonstrable. He quotes the movie, the New York Times, even other people. He supplies links and sources so that you may check up on his research. Next to that, he puts his word as a citizen on the line that when he quotes somebody and adds parenthetical citations, he is being honest towards God. I believe he has a convincing source primarily, because he has obviously done his research and made so many other movies and documentaries.
I believe the main idea of Fahrenheit 9/11 was a little personal revenge by Michael Moore. I think that in the film when Bush offended Moore and told him to get an actual job that set Moore off repeatedly to show Bush that he was the individual who had the job and that Bush was a disappointment as a president. To back this up, I want you to remember how many times he shows the identical clips of Bush golfing and "vacationing." I think I counted the same clip coming up three times. Also, in the commentary by Christopher Hitches, it stated Moore saying, "I will sue if you insult me or my pet." This makes perfect sense that when Bush said go get a real job that Moore would go off on some personal feud to try and make Bush appear awful.
I did not personally enjoy this movie. This movie was all about degrading the country that we live in and the government that leads us. Another thing that bugs me is how he trashes on Bush for staying in the classroom after hearing that the Twin Towers had been hit again. What was he supposed to do? He was in a room full of children, he had TV cameras recording his every move, and he was in a situation that no U.S. president has ever faced before. What else was he supposed to do besides calmly plan his next move?
I believe that the information that Christopher Hitchens brings to the table is good. He clearly sights his sources and gives credit as to where all the information is that he is sharing. Along with all this information is his opinion, which while I may not agree with it, at least he is not just running his mouth without any facts. He has done his research and has facts to back up his opinion.
It’s no secret that Moore and Bush aren’t best friends that go out and play golf together. If Moore and Bush were friends he could have just as easily gone out and made a movie that showed how much of an amazing president Bush is. But he was out to settle an old score. He was angry at Bush and was exposing all the dirt he could on him to get back at him. The point is to make everyone perceive Bush as a bad person.
Moral of the story: do your own research and form and opinion for yourself.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not an interesting movie to watch, it was a one sided opinion with not a lot facts to back up his opinion and personal views. I think that he exaggerates on most everything he states, he is very over opinionated. He talks about how Bush is taking countless vacations, which can't be true considering he is president and doesn't even have that much free time. Also the fact that Moore says that Bush didn't even care because he didn't make a scene when he found out about the Twin Towers being hit.
After reading the article I think that Christopher Hitchens actually did his research and had facts rather then opinions to back up his story. However, he is talking about Moore bashing Bush and his administration, but he is bashing Moore so it's kind of hypocritical.
I believe that the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to try and persuade people to think that Bush and The Bush administration is bad. Everyone has there own opinion about the president, good or bad, he just voices it and makes a video about it.
I didn't really agree with this movie. Most of what Micheal Moore had said wasn't believable. How many times President Bush took vacations doesn't have anything to do with the war in Iraq or how good of a president he is. Also, how would Micheal Moore know how many times bush took a vacation. I also think that he exagerated on alot of his points.
I read the first article and I thought that the author knew more of what he was talking about than Micheal Moore. He had more facts than opinions and backed up his information. I believe that this author is a good source and backed up his statements with facts.
I think the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 is to make our President look bad and for the public to think he isnt a good president. I admit I dont think that all of Bush's decisions are great but I dont think he's a bad president. Also the movie repeated alot of the same clips just to make it look like Moore had more on bush than he did. He was just trying to make him look worse. I dont think that much of Micheal Moore's information was valuable. I believe that alot of it was lies.
I believe Michael Moore is a very opinionated man who will do anything to get his point across. Even if he held valid arguments, it is hard to sift through all the sarcasm and exaggeration he uses when it comes to putting down President George W. Bush. He takes a lot of things out of context and does not address the majority of his critic's questions. Moore's only goal in this film was to bash our government and take away the credibility of our leaders.
It is heart breaking to see the pain which Iraqis and US soldiers witness first hand. I think the argument that we should value our soldiers and the Iraqi civilians' lives is important. It is incredibly discouraging to view footage of our soldiers being disrespectful. Even so, Michael Moore took it way out of context and disrespected the brave men who fight for us just by making this movie, and tried to blame the government.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a video which hold a small, almost indistinguishable truth, and a whole lot of criticism about President Bush and his party. He cannot back up his statements, and uses clips of speeches or videos which are completely irrelevant when put it context. Michael Moore tries to make it seem as if the President is in alliance with the terrorists, which is completely false. Al Quaida and its followers vehemently oppose America and its freedom of religion and speech. Hopefully, Moore's widespread lies will be laid to rest and those who watch his film will also be informed of the facts.
The author in “The Lies of Michael Moore” noted that Moore is one sided in Fahrenheit 9/11 but also it is obvious to me that this author doesn’t like Moore. Chris Hitchens has a past of telling the so called “truth” about authors. He has written critical articles about close friends saying how they are pieces of crap and other things among this. Some of the facts that Hitchens presents in the article are verifiable, one being that Richard Clarke, Bushes’ former chief of Counterterrorism, has come out and said it was his fault that the Bin Laden family left America. But other facts that he has put in his article are possibly just his side of things. I would say that Hitchens is kind of a credible source of information but I would say only about 50% of the things he says are liable.
Hitchens throws out points that are his point of view and Michael Moore threw out points that were his point of view. Only ones speculations can say which you would like to believe or not. With so many facts being brought into play I can only hope that all the facts are check upon and especially Moore’s facts since he was the one who made the film. I do not believe that all facts are believable but most of them are. The same goes for Hitchens, I am sure most of his points he has looked into but a lot of them are mostly just a point of view.
The purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to get people to believe that the Bush “administration” was behind the 9/11 attacks. I personally believe that not all of the attack was Bushes fault but I do believe that he had something to do with it. I think that Bush sitting in the classroom for over seven minutes with such a serious thing happening is proof to me that he was in no hurry to get back to Washington D.C. to do anything about it or to comfort Americans any other way. So, yes I do believe Bush had something to do with it. I know this is yet again someone’s point of view but that is what I am lead to believe.
The first article I read was very much an attack on Michael Moore. I think that this Chris guy was trying to confuse the reader into also thinking that Michael was a piece of crap. When he said that the video was crowd-pleasing it made me want to punch him in the face! Chris Hitchens' hipocritical artical was a crowd pleasing piece of crap!
I think that the movie was an eye opening experience, that michael was trying to be truthful in everything he put in his movie. He pushed the limits to get that truth, when he was talking about the Iraq embassy and he was standing in front of the building there were american police all over him! It is unreal how much of america the iraq "government" owns.
Personally i think that we as a nation are in a bad situation. We need to improve the ways we use our resourses, the ways we spend our money, and the direction we are taking our country.
Christopher Hitchens does a fine job on bashing Michael Moores documentary. It almost seemed like Hitchens took it personal. Hitchens blames Bush for taking too many vacations, but everyone needs a vacation. You can't blame anyone for anything just because they want to take a break and release some stress. That point Hitchens made can go either way.
One point that Hitchens made that stuck out to me was the comment that Moore made about Saddam never attacked or killed or even threatened any Americans. Then Hithcens goes on for a lengthy paragraph, informing us about all the attacks, threats, and American's that Saddam has infact killed. Why would Moore say that Saddam never did any of that? When the evidence is floating out, and guys like Hitchens can track it down any time he wants, to find out the truth.
Hithcens procedes to talk about the plane that crashed somewhere in the midst of Pennnsylnavia. Moore mentioned that if the civilians of the hijacked plane of 9/11 had been black, they would of fought back. Of course Moore failed to mention the brave people that fought back and crashed the plane in Pennsylvania that could have been heading in the direction of the White House of Captiol.
Hitchens and Moore both have great arguments. It is easy to say I don't know who to beleive. It does seem like Moore has a little more trouble backing his evidence up. Like Hithcens states about Moore, "To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything." To me, the purpose of 9/11 is for Moore to state his arguments and theroys of 9/11, which im pretty sure no one knows EXACTLY why it happened and how. Moore just wanted his opinions to be said, so maybe people will agree with him.
There were many interesting points made by the author. For instance how Mr. Moore talks about Bush's long vacations alot and how they are actually business. Another thing that really gets me is how much michael had stretched the truth and used bits of the presidents speeches and life, to make them say what he thought it should. The author of this article was only to trying to express how even if it wasn't Michael or Bush, it would be another man and another president in the same conflict.
I do belive that the author is a credible source. He refers to the movie alot, uses other people in it, and gives his sources of information. He seems like he has nothing to hide.
I think that the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to make the president look bad and turn the country against him. I do not think that there is anything in the movie that was usefull except to put a false image into peoples heads of who the president is not.
Something that i really notice in Moore's movie was that he was just showing one side, he don't look like interested in show real facts. The Author's opinion was very interesting because like me he think that Moore was trying to change the truth so the president and the govern look that have fault on what happened.
The other side the other Author really have information that should be verifiable. Because he look like that he did researches and read both sides, not like the other one that just pick up pieces of informations to make the government look that was not good.
I think that the main idea of the Fahrenheit 9/11 was to convince the people that Bush in not a good president. This show us that Moore really don't like president Bush and maybe what president Bush had decided. For me I think that Moore didn't a good job. Because if he really wanted his video be more successful he should come with more real facts and not just things to show how he don't like the government.
Micheal Moore hardly did any research on what is really happening and all the arguements were personal opinions. The whole time Mike Moore was tryin to bash on president Bush. Such as when President Bush heard about the second tower hit he sat frozen and Mike states that Bush didn't care because, its not his priority. If Bush would have said lets go to war instead of being quite then Mike would have switched that around and said he is a war deprived man.
After reading the article I realized that the author was just as one sided as Moore. The author Christopher Hitchens has imformation that is believable but, I dont think that he can be able to back them up because they are personal points of views instead of facts.
I believe the reason of Fahrenheit 9/11 was for Micheal Moore to try and show everyone that Bush is a disappointment as a president. The evidence proving my therory is that Moore showed president Bush on vacation three or more times during the whole movie and the facts Moore was saying are all very personal opinionated.
Like I said in the other blog I don’t know what to think about this. After watching Fahrenheit 9/11 i really thought that everything Moore said were true facts. After reading the first article it makes me think that Moore might have been wrong with some of the facts presented in his video. But I think the article is based on what Christopher Hitchens thinks about Moore. I think its based on his opinions.
Hitchens at the beginning of the article talks about Moore and what he thinks about him. And keeps going on about the same thing and just giving his opinion. It's obvious that the Author does not think the same way Moore does. He says the movie is dishonest and everything said in 9/11 are just lies. Hitchens gives good points about Moore being dishonest but it doesn’t show that where he got his evidence and he has no support from citations.
I think Fahrenheit 9/11 was created so people can see what is really going on with our president, and how he is not doing a good job as president. I also think this video was made so we can question our government and get involved. I don’t think we will ever find out the truth, but i agree with Moore, that our government planed it all.
In the movie Michael Moore was mainly talking about the president. The movie wasn’t very interesting to watch at all in my opinion. Like many others have said the movie is very one sided it doesn’t give facts from both sides. The article wrote by Christopher Hitchens is very understandable in some aspects.
For instance "President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) 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."
Seriously like Hitchens said what does that have to do with the events on 9/11 and is it so bad that I president took vacations?
I believe that Fahrenheit 9/11 is mainly about Moore disliking our president. He only shows the presidents “Mistakes” not all the good stuff he has done. I don’t really agree with Moore or disagree with him.
Well Christopher Hitchens (the author) obviously does not agree with Moore nor does he like the movie neither. He was constantly saying something rude towards him. He was saying that the movie was a joke, while his article was the same thing in return just on paper. Both of these men have said things to try and make you believe one thing than another, where to the point you don’t know what to believe. For an example:
*Moore trying to convince you that Bush is a retarded
*Saying that he is intertwined or tangled with the Saudis.
* Where Hitchens tries to say that the entire movie is a joke or phony
*and consistently slamming the door in Moore’s face
I do not believe that that information that the author has brought to the table is verifiable because there are not cites for it nor did he use any examples from anything nor anyone.
I researched Hitchens and the web page said "the truth why Christopher has no credibility". They said he had none because he is not capable of being believed. They said that in past stories he has changed and mixed things around.
I personally believe that the purpose to this video was made to show the flaws of our President. As you can see Moore does not like our president and will show and tell you anything to be against him as well. He is just showing you the bad side to him. This film is viewed from two different points. You have the choice to believe what you want. It is definitely hard to choose what is real and what is not.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was another movie that was made to give a view of America as deceitful and dishonest, when in reality, these two words are the only two that can perfectly fit this movie itself. Christopher Hitchens
was very interesting. One point that he made that captured my attention the most was when Moore showed Bush on vacation doing nothing but sitting in a chair relaxing. This shot was shown in less then a second, a closer and more thorough look would have shown the man sitting beside him was the Prime Minister of the UK, definitely not someone who would just be visiting on a vacation spot with the President of the United States. One point that really made me think was, how could Michael Moore get a hold of President Bush's Air Force record, when the authorities (whoever they may have been) would not release them publicly? However when they did release them, they had names blotted out. Why was Michael Moore's copy perfect, and how did he get it? Michael Moore himself is really not a reliable source of information.
Christopher made some very interesting points and like all the conspiracies theory’s a lot make sense and have information to back it up and some don’t but I think Christopher Hitchens did and he proved it by getting active and showing us on tape.
This film made my Micheal Moore was obciously one sided. He presented only one side of facts with none whatsoever from a positive viewpoint. He bashes Bush and his administrative office throughout with some good points and many ignorant sides also. I'm not a Bush fan but having a two sided movie might convinve more people to believe his points.
The author gives many opinions and facts with points to back up what he says. You can check into what he says. I feel he is a good source because he has two sides to present.
The movie Fahrenheit 9/11 I feel was made to bash the Bush office. He hasn't made very good decisions for our country but if Moore wanted to take him out that way he should have done some more research and presented his facts differently .
Farenheit 9/11
Okay so this film was majorly dissing on the republican party side and the George Bush administration and President Bush himself. This film was not speaking the truth what so ever . Moore was making himself look like an idiot in this film. He is politically incorrect and is trying to educate the younger generation and trying to perswade that the president is terrible. I can't see how Moore can say,"i love this country" when all he does is bash our leaders and saying their lying to us ." He is truly the enemy within america.Anything that comes out of his mouth is lies and provoking towards our political system. He didnt even give both sides of the political party and notice it was all about ripping on the republicans and how they are liers. O please , if anything he is a big fat lier . Just look at the guy . Dont need to say any more there . Also he was always bring up George Bush past . Give it up, its the past focus on the main points of now , today and quit spreading your little lies and the information that you think you know what your talking about.
The first article was actually very interesting i felt that it was actually based on facts not off of opinion. Thats a big diffrence from Moore, his was on hish point of veiw. Where is the facts buddy? Hitchens also made his sources noticable and Moore did not explain where he was getting his info from . O , maybe becasue he likes his opinion and not put the time into his "research". Hichens dosnt focus on one side of the party but he gives you both sides . It makes you think. He makes it much more easier for people to understand with having both roles in the political party sides.
Overall Moore and his film that was made was obviously made to bash the republican and President Bush . Thats clearly what the film was doing. A dishonest, unworthy man is what Moore is . He should not make another film becasue if you dont have the facts straight then dont try and perswade with your pethetic opinion.
Farenheit 9/11
Okay so this film was majorly dissing on the republican party side and the George Bush administration and President Bush himself. This film was not speaking the truth what so ever . Moore was making himself look like an idiot in this film. He is politically incorrect and is trying to educate the younger generation and trying to perswade that the president is terrible. I can't see how Moore can say,"i love this country" when all he does is bash our leaders and saying their lying to us ." He is truly the enemy within america.Anything that comes out of his mouth is lies and provoking towards our political system. He didnt even give both sides of the political party and notice it was all about ripping on the republicans and how they are liers. O please , if anything he is a big fat lier . Just look at the guy . Dont need to say any more there . Also he was always bring up George Bush past . Give it up, its the past focus on the main points of now , today and quit spreading your little lies and the information that you think you know what your talking about.
The first article was actually very interesting i felt that it was actually based on facts not off of opinion. Thats a big diffrence from Moore, his was on hish point of veiw. Where is the facts buddy? Hitchens also made his sources noticable and Moore did not explain where he was getting his info from . O , maybe becasue he likes his opinion and not put the time into his "research". Hichens dosnt focus on one side of the party but he gives you both sides . It makes you think. He makes it much more easier for people to understand with having both roles in the political party sides.
Overall Moore and his film that was made was obviously made to bash the republican and President Bush . Thats clearly what the film was doing. A dishonest, unworthy man is what Moore is . He should not make another film becasue if you dont have the facts straight then dont try and perswade with your pethetic opinion.
Farenheit 9/11
Okay so this film was majorly dissing on the republican party side and the George Bush administration and President Bush himself. This film was not speaking the truth what so ever . Moore was making himself look like an idiot in this film. He is politically incorrect and is trying to educate the younger generation and trying to perswade that the president is terrible. I can't see how Moore can say,"i love this country" when all he does is bash our leaders and saying their lying to us ." He is truly the enemy within america.Anything that comes out of his mouth is lies and provoking towards our political system. He didnt even give both sides of the political party and notice it was all about ripping on the republicans and how they are liers. O please , if anything he is a big fat lier . Just look at the guy . Dont need to say any more there . Also he was always bring up George Bush past . Give it up, its the past focus on the main points of now , today and quit spreading your little lies and the information that you think you know what your talking about.
The first article was actually very interesting i felt that it was actually based on facts not off of opinion. Thats a big diffrence from Moore, his was on hish point of veiw. Where is the facts buddy? Hitchens also made his sources noticable and Moore did not explain where he was getting his info from . O , maybe becasue he likes his opinion and not put the time into his "research". Hichens dosnt focus on one side of the party but he gives you both sides . It makes you think. He makes it much more easier for people to understand with having both roles in the political party sides.
Overall Moore and his film that was made was obviously made to bash the republican and President Bush . Thats clearly what the film was doing. A dishonest, unworthy man is what Moore is . He should not make another film becasue if you dont have the facts straight then dont try and perswade with your pethetic opinion.
In the article on slate.com the views on Moore were mean, bias, cold, and true. The research done by this man before making his documentary was all just heresy by many of this directors friends and associates.
I read the article on slate.com and I found that the author was no dumbass and he researched his information much the way Moore didn't. His presentation of the information wasn't from a personal viewpoint as much as it was researched facts. He also made his sources known, as Moore kept his a secret. I couldn't tell whether or not my author liked our president but that doesn't matter. He likes our country.
Some interesting things I found were that Moore’s views were very against Bush and the Government he wasn't all about bush so instead of giving straight facts he left out true statements about The United State's Government and gave only half the truth in order to make Bush and the Government look bad. The author's thoughts on the arguments by Moore was that he left out information to make it look worse than it appeared.
After doing some research and reading the articles, some interesting points jumped out. One is that both authors believe the documentary to be filled with lies, not to discredit it entirely, as there are some truths, but they are usually enshrouded with a one-sided view so that one cannot come to any other conclusion about the information other than the one that Moore would like you to see.
From what I have researched, the author Christopher Hitchens, certainly has the credentials and experience to bring criticism upon Michael Moore. Earlier in his career, he was identified mostly with the Anglo-American, radical-left; however, after their “tepid reaction”, Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie caused him to embrace some right-wing issues. This, along with his political background and high level of education, qualifies him as a credible critic.
As for the second part of this question and after more independent research, I have found that many of Hitchen’s rebuttals of Moore to be verifiable and his work, at least in this case, seems to be less one-sided and more credible.
The purpose of this film, as I see it, is to have the viewer take and mold their views of our state of the union so one believes it to be almost a complete breakdown of normal function, mixed in with a little hate and distrust of the current administration. Furthermore, we know that Moore has a burning hatred for the Bush administration and that’s not the best state of mind for somebody to be in while supposedly creating an unbiased report on an event that took place under the Bush’s administration.
That being said, I am glad that we have the right to say anything we want—just remember that means anybody can lie to you…so have trust but always research things for yourself and formulate your own interpretation based on facts.
Some interesting things I found were that Moore’s views were very against Bush and the Government he wasn't all about bush so instead of giving straight facts he left out true statements about The United State's Government and gave only half the truth in order to make Bush and the Government look bad. The author's thoughts on the arguments by Moore was that he left out information to make it look worse than it appeared.
I think the author gives pretty good information and sources because it actually seems like he did some research that was piled together on only one side of the conflict like Fahrenheit 911. I also think from looking on both sides of the conflict wether The author was for or against Bush, he states good recources on can rely on to believe and learn more about the discussion.
I think the purpose of 911 was to make viewers that not so informed about the government to think that The Bush Administration is a bad one. The pieces by Moore that i thought were pretty valuable were when he researched the plane crashes on that day that didnt even look like it would have been a plane crash.That I think opened the eyes to people already against Bush.I believe there both really good discussions one not so better than the other.
An interesing point in reading this article was how the author really made it a point to point out that Michael Moore was telling lies. He did not necessarily have any research to back up his stories about anything. He took every live footage of Bush discussing 9/11 and turned his words in a complete 360. The author points out a lot that Bush was commonly seen on vacation and that Michael Moore made it seem that at that exact time he was on vacation was when the attack on the twin towers happens when just like the author stated there was no proof to back up his assumptions that were shown on the video.
This information is very studied upon from Michael Moore. He not ony researched how to make people look at links to so called "real information" but he also studied to on how to reply to peoples questions and he had already put his self on the market with other documentaries and movies.
I think the main purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to ruin Bush's reputation. I believe Michael Moore was never a fan of President Bush, so in order to make more Americans so aware of what Michael thinks happened on 9/11 he dug really deep into Bush's personal life and changed a lot of what actually came out of his mouth into a bunch of lies to stir people up and cause chaos. To me I think that our country is being delt with the best that we know how to right now, if Michale Moore put himself in Bush's shoes I'm sure it wouldn't turn out so great. It's not an easy job to have a lot of people hate you and yet still have to make huge decisions. He obviously is doing the best he knows how to do and trying to avoid any more terrorism.
There were some good points that are made in the views if Moore that shows that what he was saying is just one sided and all pretty much towards our government and trying to make the government look bad. In the author’s opinion on the arguments that Moore had presented was that he had distorted the information that he had presented and that all that he is trying to do is make the government look bad and that they are the ones that should be accountable for everything that is happening.
I personally think that the author (Christopher Hitchens) is the real person that everyone should be listening to because it shows that he has searched and actually found all the real information about everything that Moore had said and he didn’t leave out any details and missing parts to his story, and that what Moore was saying was just bits and pieces of the real story but Christopher found out the truth behind the movie of Fahrenheit 9/11.
I think that the whole reason for the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was to try and get the people of the United States to believe that President Bush was the worst pick of a president and that he is lazy and doesn’t really care about his country or anyone in it. It kind of shows that Moore doesn’t like Bush at all and that the thing that he is trying to do is pursued the people how horrible he is but really Moore has been proven wrong over and over again and Hitchens is the one to prove it to all the people that Moore is the one in fact wrong about everything that he has said. I don’t think that Moore can be a good source because he doesn’t tell the truth, I’m not saying that everything that he has said is a lie just the facts behind it and that he takes the bits and pieces of it and turns it all around onto the negatives of it but it never shows Bush actually doing something good so you really only get one side of the story. I’m not saying that just because he doesn’t like Bush that he’s wrong I’m just saying that if he had the facts straight he would be more believable and even more convincing.
I think that after reading this article, Moore didn't really care weather or not that Bush was a good president or not. Mainly all he is worried about is the huge mess that Bush did with the 9/11 situation. In this article it said that Moore did no research and did not want this to happen. During the whole movie it mainly made me angry because it was basically a one man deal thing.
In my own opinion I believe that the purpose of the movie was to get Bush back for the ridiculous thing that he created. During the whole movie all it mainly talked about is all the Bush worries about is his golfing, vacationing, and taking his time doing his own things. I believe that Moore was a great man and help many of families because he showed many families that losing a loved one in this Bush situation was a devastating thing. I believe that this movie should go around because it did make me think about how many people Bush hurt and how many people Moore tried to help.
The interesting things that got me thinking is, Why is this Bush guy our president if all he is doing is ruining our country and killing thousands of people instead of helping out our country that he is supposed to be controlling and helping out. But, I know it may be true, I don't believe that in the movie they should have showed Bush doing all his alone time things instead of saving our country that's dying off.
After reading the article, I feel that the most important point is that Moore does not use whole quotes and clips. He uses pieces of them so that they will support what he has to say, and he cuts out a lot of the important stuff from the clips that he uses. For example, when he showed clips of President Bush in a lawn chair, he didn't mention that he was with the former Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, and that they were having an important business meeting. He manipulates his information to make it look like what he wants it to look like.
I don't believe that there is much of a difference between Michael Moore and Christopher Hitchens. Michael Moore did what he had to do to get his point across, and so did Hitchens. I don't think that there was very much proof in what Hitchens had to say however. All he really did was badmouth Moore. He didn't use any research or any facts to support what he was saying. To me, the article he wrote seemed like he was just countering everything Moore had to say, just for the sake of argueing with it.
I think the purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was to show the citizens of America another view on what happened on that day. I think that Moore had a good point about how members of the Bin Ladin family left the country when the towers were bombed. I think that helped his thesis a lot, and I agree with a lot of thigs that he brought up.
I thought the film was very well made and very convincing. However, I can't help but show little interest in conspiracy theories. The maker of the film made some very good points and supplied some good supporting claims. I do realize though, that there are many people that for some reason or another, want to degrade the American Government. I personally feel that we cannot make educated views on anything regarding politics by watching conspiracy theories posted on the World Wide Web. The American Government does hold "secrets" and important details from the American people. I believe this is not only acceptable but absolutely /mandatory. Under no circumstances should the average citizen know details of a political decision or terrorist acts. Even the movie said that details were released to the families of the casualties; and those are the only ones that should know the details.
As far as what happened on 9/11, we know that there was a strike on American soil by terrorist. I do believe the American Government knew that a strike was supposedly about to happen but there was little anyone could do. Dates of a strike were unknown and threats are constantly made and rarely take place. At the time, I was very pro-war. However, over seven years later I think the exact opposite. We are after a "group" not a country, and its impossible to have a war with terrorist because they are such a universal and global enemy. In a way, its kind of like fighting disease, you can hold it off for a while but it inevitably strike every once and a while.
A few important points that I noted was that Moore exaggerated what he was talking about and had no proof to back up his statements. Many times, as Americans, we take statements at face value and do no research to prove if they were right or wrong. That obviously was what Moore was counting on. By playing off the naiveity of the American public people actually believed his argument.
I believe the information from the author is more viable than Moore's. He quotes the movie, other people, and the New York times. Obviously everyone exaggerates the truth at some point and I'm not saying that either is 100% correct, but Moore definately had no proof in his arguments as this author did.
I believe the purpose of Fahrenheit 9-11 was Moore trying to get the American people against Bush. Granted, Bush has made some mistakes as EVERY president has, but I would much rather trust George Bush with running my coutry than someone like Michael Moore. Moore obviously holds a grudge against Bush due to the fact that in an interview Bush insulted him. Fahrenheit 9-11 is a ridiculous exaggeration made by an angry man.
The author (Christopher Hitchens) of one of the articles was really no better than Moore in my opinion bashing him just as much as Moore bashed Bush. Both their views were completely bias, and one sided. I am completely torn on what to think about Bush though, not saying that I believe everything Moore said but a lot of the things just seemed a little iffy. Like in the classroom with the kids yes he shouldn't have just jumped up and gone to war, but he's the President of the United States he should not have just sat there looking stupid, not doing anything. I don't even know what to think or say about it cause I honestly don't know what my opinion is I’m very torn.
Moore did probably crop and edit and make it look like everything that Bush did and didn't do was a lot worse or not good enough then it actually was. Hitchens is a excellent source he obviously did his research he quoted the movie. I agree more with what he is saying than what Moore said.
I don’t understand why people have to go and try to make points like this and cause problems, Bush is the president and he’s doing the best that he can, we do not know what anyone else would have done in this situation.
I believe that the author Christopher Hitchens did not do a very good job making his information seem verifiable, believable, or credible. Rather than proving Moore's movie "wrong", Hitchens seemed to just point insult towards him. The whole article seemed rather childish in sound and was not credible. There were no cited sources that I could find and the article itself seemed rather skeptic.
I think that Moore's movie was a waste of time to watch. All it did was point fingers at President Bush and shine him in a false light. Moore did a great job making President Bush seem like a horrible president. What Moore really did was edit the clips and add some biased sounding music to the clip to make Bush seem like he never works and is always playing (golfing clip). Personally, I think that Moore's video is completely single-minded and biased-and is actually getting people to believe this nonsense! This video should have never been published. I do not believe that there is a single piece of valuable information on that video.
After doing some research and reading the articles, some interesting points jumped out. One is that both authors believe the documentary to be filled with lies, not to discredit it entirely, as there are some truths, but they are usually enshrouded with a one-sided view so that one cannot come to any other conclusion about the information other than the one that Moore would like you to see.
From what I have researched, the author Christopher Hitchens, certainly has the credentials and experience to bring criticism upon Michael Moore. Earlier in his career, he was identified mostly with the Anglo-American, radical-left; however, after their “tepid reaction”, Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie caused him to embrace some right-wing issues. This, along with his political background and high level of education, qualifies him as a credible critic.
As for the second part of this question and after more independent research, I have found that many of Hitchen’s rebuttals of Moore to be verifiable and his work, at least in this case, seems to be less one-sided and more credible.
The purpose of this film, as I see it, is to have the viewer take and mold their views of our state of the union so one believes it to be almost a complete breakdown of normal function, mixed in with a little hate and distrust of the current administration. Furthermore, we know that Moore has a burning hatred for the Bush administration and that’s not the best state of mind for somebody to be in while supposedly creating an unbiased report on an event that took place under the Bush’s administration.
That being said, I am glad that we have the right to say anything we want—just remember that means anybody can lie to you…so have trust but always research things for yourself and formulate your own interpretation based on facts.
I completely and absolutely disagree with Michael Moore and his completely ridiculous assumptions and theories. It was very hard to comprehend the levels of stupidity that were reached in this video. Fahrenheit 9/11 is the most biased and opinion based incorrect video I have ever seen. There is no factual information to back up his theories. All of his so called "facts" in my opinion are just biased information that he's manipulated to try and prove a ludicrous theory. Why so many rhetorical questions?
Michael Moore spliced and manipulated video footage over the course of five years. Anyone can do that and make anyone else seem like a complete moron. He spliced footage of President Bush's vacation making it seem a lot longer than it actually was. Every president goes on vacation, heck everyone goes on vacation. He made a point of showing how rich people are the only ones who can afford a safety chamber. The kind of mechanics that it takes to assemble a chamber like that, one can only assume costs a lot of money, there has to be a profit somewhere.
One other thing that Moore depicted as being a bad thing was trying to recruit poor people. For anyone that's never tired to recruit someone it's easy to knock on. Poor people have the most to gain in the armed forces, thus making it a lot easier to recruit them. The armed forces give people a better chance to prosper in the US. So, why could Moore be against it? Why be against a better future for someone? We take chances everyday, why not take one that will not only make a difference in you life but everyone else's around you and your country? Someone's got to do it.
In conclusion, I think Michael Moore is a complete idiot with nothing better to do than set a personal vendetta against George W. Bush. I'm not surprised his movie won awards or gained a lot of money. People are impressionable and very easily manipulated. In my opinion people need to research more information before they actually form an opinion.
My opinion of Fahrenheit 9/11 was definitely not a good one! Michael Moore is not one of the top people on my list. All he had to say was negative things about President George W. Bush. I know he was trying to make a comical documentary, but in my opinion there was nothing comical about it. I don't think Michael Moore had the best information to back up his feelings towards George Bush.
My first complaint towards this documentary was that the clips of president Bush were so randomly placed. They were two second clips, which proves nothing, and it was obvious that he changed how they were into how he wanted them to be. Its ok not to like someone, but when you sit here and make a documentary of how horrible a person is and all the things he does wrong, it gets immature. Two events that occured in the video that made me angry were...
1)George Bush golfing. He is allowed to have vacations just like everyone else. I highly doubt he was out having a blast while the world was being destroyed. Extremely hard to believe.
2) When the twin towers collapsed and Bush supposedly "did absolutely nothing and didn't care," what is he going to do get up and go fight the planes with his bare hands. He needs time to think and plan something. He is reading books with a bunch of little kids!
Michael Moore definitely presented this film wrong. It was very unprofessional. I think when you are talking about a topic this strong and serious you can't turn it into a comedy.
In the article the author made a good point stating that Michael Moore did almost NO research and did not know what was actually happening. He just showed what he wanted to believe. I feel that no matter what Bush does, good or bad, Michael Moore will have something bad to say about it.
When first reading this article, the author starts off right away by insulting Moore, which clearly shows that he dislikes and disagrees with him. The author states that, "Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness." The author goes on to explain different ways in which the movie fahrenheit 9/11 makes a bunch of mistakes and how a bunch of what Moore says isn't true. However when I looked up Christipher Hitchens, the author I found out that he is described as a radical political left, but has supports some right wing causes, like the Iraq war.
I think that the author is much like Moore. He has his beliefs that he stands by firmly, and is good at presenting them in ways to make people believe him, whether they are right or wrong.
I think that the purpose of 9/11 is to make people question what really happened. It makes people second guess what the government says, and it really makes you want to research and learn more about it, and then decided for yourself.
Christopher Hitchens obviously disagrees with Moore. I find him to be completely one sided. All Hitchens did was basically insult Moore. People world rather hear the reasons why he is wrong instead of rag on someone. Like others I found hitchens article to be quite childish and really made no point of interest.
Moore’s video was all about how bad bush was but people do have to see that side of bush I believe. Many people either love or hate bush but I believe which ever one it is you should have a reason why and Moore’s video may not be a great reason to hate him but it gives you a side you may never seen before. Though Moore’s video should have shown good things too to show you both sides but maybe there was no good side .,.its Bush.
The movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is another proof filled movie trying to show how dishonest America's governemt is. Moore also just talks about how bad our government is and is trying to make us have even less belief in our government. Christopher Hitchens has many points through out his article where he tries to prove how dishonest Moore's movie actually is. Hitchens does have the experince to be credited with proving how Moore basically is an idiot and didn't do much with his phony movie and obvious lack of studying to try and show people why he hates our Government.
I think Moore did a poor job and I think Christopher Hitchens does a good job in showing why Moore makes no sense. Moore's movie seemed so unreal that it really didn't take much convincing from Hitchens to prove to me why Moore made a fool of himself in trying to prove to the average citizen why we should be against our un-trust worthy government.
Fahrenheit 9/11 may not be entirely true. Moore did leave out important facts to distort information. But if you are under the impression that our government tells us everything and tell you there real intent behind the things they do. Then you live in a fantasy world with leper cons and unicorns. Of course then don’t tell us things lots of thing, you’re a fool if you believe otherwise. Even Christopher Hitchens agrees that our government lies about information and I quote “Well there are lies from the Bush administration which should concern everyone” (Christopher Hitchens).
Michael Moore and Christopher Hitchens bring interesting fact to the table. And in some parts they agree on things. But everyone can agree Moore’s opinions are one very one-sided, the part on Iraqi is just one sided. The biggest thing I think that Moore is trying to get across is in the USA PATRIOT Act, and how the Congress said they didn’t have the time to read every bill that comes to them to be signed. That is ridicules, I don’t know about you but I have to give the government a lot of money every pay. So they better being reading every bill that comes at them, and to not read them no matter how big or small the bill is, is just negligent and a crime to all Americans.
In conclusion I think it’s hard to believe all of Moore arguments when there are so one sided but a lot of the info we get is filtered and one sided it always has. Both Michael Moore and Christopher Hitchens have some reliable sources and are creditable. But what I think Moore is trying to get across is that we as Americans need to open are eyes and question everything. We are extremely sheltered and self centered in this country. We don’t want to do anything about other country’s problems unless it has some benefit for us. Iraq was having problem for years with their leader but we didn’t care till it came to us being attacked and in that lies the problem.
After reading the first article on the 59 deceits of Fahrenheit 9/11, or possibly more appropriately FahrenHype 9/11, the blogger makes some very interesting points on the movie. The First Part on the Bush Administration’s connections with the Arab world is all just a collection of assumptions, and we all know what assumptions make, and words put in other people’s mouths and statements taken out of context; as I like to say, 99% of secondhand knowledge is no knowledge at all. The Second Part talks about subsequent domestic issues such as the USA Patriot Act, this section is very short and therefore does not have time to travel to far off the course of truth. The third piece on the Iraq War contains many opposite truths and multiple biased interviews.
Yes, after nearly 8 years in office it is pretty agreed upon that Bush is a terrible President, but what makes him so bad? Could it be because his policies are bad, his agencies corrupt, NO the real reason ‘everyone’ hates Bush is because he did what every President does: he couldn’t run a perfect world. Yes we can look at his connections with oil companies in Saudi Arabia and say “He is using our government to make money for himself!” if anyone who reads this can honestly say that if they had the opportunity to make a little bit more bang for your buck, they wouldn’t I ask them to contact me personally so I can blatantly tell them they are a liar. All people in positions of power reap benefits, just because Bush was too stupid to cover it up doesn’t change the fact that he is not the only one of his kind.
Yes we all know that the FBI, Congress and other government bodies have their own agendas, does this mean that we as Americans should now say that they are bad just because we voted them in and we submitted to their laws. In the words of Ben Franklin, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” We as Americans should not give up our freedoms for ANY so called security. That is what we did in passing the USA Patriot Act and we will still be feeling the consequences from it in unborn generations.
WMD’s, al-Qaeda Saddam alliances, were all falsehoods created by Bush for the exclusive purpose of making money, we know it to be true. The interesting part is the depth that Moore goes into just to carry his point that Bush is not fit to be President, the American people know this, we don’t need to see further stretches of the truth by Moore just to tell the American people that we screwed up in the elections of 2000 and 2004. Nor do we need to see so many one-sided interviews, after the 20th soldier we get the point that Iraq was not a good idea.
The sad part of the movie to me is how Moore discredits himself just to discredit a President who is on the trail end of his term in office. All of this hype makes me wonder does Moore have a hidden agenda???
Michael Moore is full of it. He basically started up rumers that any person could have start. The only difference is that he worded what he was saying in a way to make it sound truthful. And he also just cut out different parts of footage from newscasts and stuff to frame george W. Bush and make him look bad. Which is very wrong of him. And I personally don't believe a word he says.
Well Christopher Hitchens obviously does not agree with Moore nor does he like the movie either. He was constantly saying some rude comments towards him. He was saying that the movie was a joke. Even though his article was the same just on paper. Both of the men have said things to try and make you believe one thing then another, it’s to the point you don’t know what to believe. For example:
-Moore is trying to convince everyone that Bush is a retarded
-Moore saying that he is intertwined or tangled with the Saudis.
- And Hitchens tries to say that the entire movie is a joke or fake
-Hitchens is consistently dissing Moore
I don’t believe that the information the author has said is verifiable. There are not cites for he’s fact and the web page said "the truth why Christopher has no credibility".
I believe the purpose to the video was to show the flaws of our President. You can see Moore does not like our president and will show and tell you anything to be against him. Moore is just showing you the bad side. This film is viewed from two different perspectives and you have the choice to believe what you point of view you want.
Moore made Bush look like a complete jerk throughout the whole movie. Bush has had his ups and downs, but all this documentary does is bag on push constantly. When push sat in the classroom with the kids. I dont think Bush was sitting there because he didnt care, I think he was sitting there as he read to think about what he should do, instead of being quick about decisions and just leaving the classroom. He does present a lot of points but he said a few times the real documents were this and this. Well how did he get his hands on those "real" documents. He never explained where he got these offical documents from. Him cutting off speeches to make the point seem stronger than it really is. He is somewhat of a valid source of information, but some things he had on there didn't seem to be very true.
I personally think that Michael Moore is an idiot. All he ever does in Fahrenheit 9/11 is slam Bush. I think the documentary wanders to far off path and expresses Moore's opinion, not actual facts. In the end you don't really gain any knowledge, other than the fact the Moore is out to make Bush look bad.
In the article by Hitchens, I believe all the information is verifiable. Hitchens clearly states sources, also he quotes the documentary and other well known sources like the New York Times.
Verifiable or not, I still think this is just more ramblings of a mad man. Both Moore and Hitchens have personal vendettas. In my opinion you should form your own opinion by researching a NON-BIASED source.
In the notes I took of Fahrenheit 9/11 very few were credible and could actually be make into an actual case. Many of the things he brought up and displayed were clips and speeches made by George Bush but were manipulated to solidify the point mike was trying to make. To mikes defense some of the things George W. Bush said were really stupid, but any clip and or words can be made to look like almost anything with the right music and foreshadowing leading up to it.
I read the first article and right of the bat I could see that the information that he gave was fact based. His information was credible and his sources were more obvious than Mr. Moors. His views were also more about the subject at hand and not about his personal and political views. I really don’t feel like Mr. Moore very many if any credible points in the video. Almost all of his subjects and information was about the government overstepping personal boundaries or just being lazy. Like the video clip where he found the guy that got abducted and questioned about government sabotage and treason was crazy but who is that guy and what does he have to do with 9/11?
I believe that the purpose of this film was to personally attack the credibility and value of the president; He used some facts of the actual attack of 9/11 but most were just personal shots aimed at the government and the head honcho. Very little information in this film is credible and substantial, this really was just an attempt to soil George Bush's name, (which plenty of TV. shows and commercials do anyway.) and it didn’t make me feel any differently about the president than I did before.
One of the most important points i noticed was that the other of these artiles clearly disaproved of Michael Moore's films, and why shouldnt he? Have you tried to count the infactual points that he made through this documentary? too many, thats how many. Poersonaly i would characterize this film as sloppy and unprofessional if it were about another country , but to bash your own country!?! thats simply unacceptable. The only reason he even brought up so many of these misquoted points was for attention, and any attention at that. As Christopher Hitchens
said, "However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. 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." Any time any place. The sole purpose for the film Farenheit 9/11 was for cheap theatrical attention and nothing more. if he had only researched so many of his accusations, such as when Bush sat infront a group of elementry students for the better part of seven minutes. He would have realized that the president of the United Sates in the 21st sentury was just told that His country, the land he had grown to love and now was the commander of chief of, the country that was his responsibility, had just been attacked on the main land for the first time in nearly 60 years by a forign power. Why the hell wouldnt he be in shock!?!? Wouldnt you!?! Things that are simple common sence should have been excluded from the film but he couldnt stop there, he refered back to it three times!! this film was meant to be provocative and it certainly is... But not in the way it was intended. To put it simply I vote we pick up our pitch forks and light up some torches because I wanna rage!
An important thing to take not of while watching Fahrenheit 911 was the author’s personal dislike of Moore. Throughout the movie he is constantly insulting and putting him Moore down. He doesn’t even use facts to argue Moore’s point of view. He just claims that Moore’s arguments contradict each other, “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.” This is only a matter of opinion. The author also argues Moore’s points with information that has not been cited or credited.
Christopher Hitchens, the author of this article, is a literary critic, author, and journalist. He has written in a variety of media outlets. As a political observer he has written best-selling books that have become the center of talk shows and lecture circuits. Among his writings he has written a book that claims Mother Theresa was corrupt. He apparently writes from his own opinionated perspective, making him a very unreliable source. He is very biased and doesn’t use facts in his arguments.
I believe that the purpose of Fahrenheit 911 was to prove that the U.S. could have done more to prevent the terrorist attack from happening. I also think that they are trying to say that we also have alternative reasons for the war in Iraq, not just to fight terrorism. They have a very convincing argument, however I still believe that it is just another conspiracy theory. I feel that the information presented was either taken out of context or only a half-truth. The terrorist attack on 9-11 was a devastating blow to the United States, I believe that our government did what they thought was best, I don’t think anyone else would have been able to make better decisions amidst the chaos and confusion that took place that day.
After watching the video and reading the article and many other people’s blogs, I can conclude that Fahrenheit 9/11 is no better than the last blog we had to post. The author (Michael Moore) couldn’t even provide enough proof to justify his own words and used anything and everything he could to show his revulsion towards George Bush. For some reason I come to think that the authors opinion was presented in too much of the video and he didn’t have enough facts.
This article makes me rethink about becoming president. Not like I wanted to but now when I think about it, the media will criticize who ever and what ever it can to the public just for attention. Main people like the president are mocked no matter what they do.
Christopher Hitchens isn’t much better than Moore. He has more evidence than Moore on the subjects but he consistently tries to pick a fight with Moore. These political discussions are more nauseating and conspicuous than helpful to our government and I believe that nothing these people have to say can really effect our government’s actions and doubt that it will hold up in an interview with high government officials.
I watched an interview of the loose change ‘association’ and saw them fail miserably in all aspects of the debate, as I should call it because not only were they not prepared, but they couldn’t foolproof any of their arguments. Not even to the little extent they did like their documentary. This article is just like all the other debates that contradict the United States and its constitution. There is nothing more I should add to this discussion because it doesn’t deserve any further notice than it already has received. End of subject.
ti didnt really care for the film "Fahrenheit 9/11" to much. everyone has their own opinion on what they think what might have happend on 9/11.
michael moore made a film on his opinion showing what he thought president bush was doing, and why he might have known about 9/11 before it happend.
in my opinion i dont know exactly what happend but i dont agree with any of michale moore opinions. he made bush look like what he thinks everyone should see him as. Moore film wasnt put together well at all. i could tell that he cut scense out of bush to make the situation look worse then what it really was. michale moore took this film personally on this thoughts instead of true facts. i dont think anything he said was a fact more of an opinion. how did he know what bush was feeling like on 9/11? or how many vacations he takes? the point is michale moore has no true evidence it wasnt all there only bits, and then he would turn that pice into what he wanted it to be.
I think the author gives pretty good information and sources because it actually seems like he did some research that fit together on only one side of the conflict like Fahrenheit 911. I also think the main purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11 was a little personal vendetta by Michael Moore. I think that in the video when Bush insulted Moore and told him to get a real job, that set Moore off in order to show Bush that he was the one who had the job and that Bush was a failure as a president.
As interesting as this movie was, it had many flaws. Moore is just like any other american complaining about 9/11, but he had the power to make a movie about it. He has all false evidence and no real facts. Pieces of film were thrown in of Bush golfing and reading to a class just to make him look stupid, just because your the president doesn't mean you have leisure time and Moore knows this, but he knows how to work the media industry as well.
The article provides the information to back up what the author was saying, unlike Moore this kid has done his homework. We all know nobody would believe that Bush would sit and do nothing in his mind when hes told the United States is being attacked. He had to have a calm outcome without scaring a bunch of elementary school kids. So Moores perception of this is ridiculous.
The purpose of this movie was to bash on the Bush administration. Im sure Moore isnt republican anyway, being democratic or republican,either way your going to bash on others actions and ideas. It was a good movie to show how media can change the minds of a lost society who doesnt care about whats going on in the world,so they go with the first thing they hear and pretend they know everything about the subject. Moore is good with making movies but this one was a stupid thing to produce.
Post a Comment