Has anyone seen Fahrenheit 9/11??? Options

[SexiSurfette]

It is propaganda. It was on the news the other day. They said the fact that it's even being called a documentary is very misleading to audiences. Michael Moore did not show the full truth or even a balanced view of what really happened. Look, this first quote is from a Christian news site while the other is from a secular news site. Moore uses incorrect information to present a skewed view to the masses in hopes of swaying the public for his personal motives.

"There is very little here that anyone who has followed the politics of the past four years would consider new or revealing; for the most part, Moore's film is a merry, occasionally sentimental summary of every anti-Bush opinion column ever written.
Moore is much less interested in plumbing the ambiguities and ironies of American political life than in doing whatever it takes to manipulate his audience's sympathies.

The most striking thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 is not what Moore puts into the film, but what he leaves out.

The problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 is not that it is one-sided, per se; it is that Moore barely acknowledges there even is another side. The problem is not that he fails to give the other side equal time or equal validity; it is that he shows virtually no interest in what that other side might be, and in how he might best deal with it. Inevitably, this weakens Moore's own arguments—or it would, if he was all that concerned about making any. Moore's appeal is more emotional and visceral than intellectual; in his own way, Moore is a fearmonger, and preying on the ignorance of his audience just as he accuses Bush of doing" - Peter T. Chattaway (Christian Movies Today)

"The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque."

- Roger Ebert (Chicago Suntimes)

[T00000]

of course Bush is guna retaliate to terrorist attcks. do you expect us just to sit back and relax like sitting ducks waiting for more of our own innocent people to be killed? and as for sending young boys to die..Buch didnt force them to go fight. i mean, there wasnt a draft. those people went on their own free will, for the same reason Bush got us into the war, and thats to defend our country. and just because Moore isnt running against Buch in the election doesnt mean he didnt put that movie out for personal motives. For all we know he could simply want to make Bush look like a jackass just because he agrees with nothing Buch says or does. And frankly, she can bitch about whatever she wants. who are you to tell her what she can or cant talk about just because you dont agree? cause we all know about our right to free speech.

iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. and more people are being killed in iraq than if they werent there in the first place.