Michael Moore on the Late Show
 

Did anyone catch Michael Moore on Letterman, Friday night? I have heard quite a bit of discussion in the electronic media about the impending release of Fahrenheit 9/11, and it was interesting to hear from the man in person. It sounds like the documentary is going to really heat up the debate on Bush vs Iraq and bin Laden (as if it wasn't hot enough already).:rolleyes:

Moore made quite a point when he said that the Saudi Royal family and the bin Ladens had donated $1.4 billion to the Republicans, and that the day after 9/11 Bush personally authorised transport for 24 members of the bin Laden family to be flown out of the US. (I'm not implying here that the bin Laden family supports Osama. I don't know one way or the other, whether some members do, or none do. It is the special treatment they received that raises the question.)

Dave's audience seemed to be split pretty evenly in their support of, or opposition to Moore. It sounds like Fahrenheit 9/11 is a very damning indictment of the Bush administration. I just wonder whether it will have sufficient impact to unseat Bush in November. Fahrenheit 9/11 is certainly going to polarise the voters even more than they currently are.

What do you guys think?

Re: Michael Moore on the Late Show
 

Bush is already far into the process of unseating himself in November. Moore's movie is a symptom, not a cause.

The flight which flew bin Ladin family members out happened after the ban on commercial flights was lifted. It was an offer made to many Saudis, not to bin Laden's family specifically. The decision to permit it was made by Richard Clarke.

I did see the interview. To disclose my bias, I'm fairly conservative but have no reservations about trashing Bush when its called for (a lot lately). Having said that, however, Moore both picked up and lost some credibility with me.

His pro-military position (which surprised me) was refreshing and shored him up a bit. But, Moore basically admitted that he has little regard for accuracy in his public positions. Letterman asked him about his Oscar speech about basing the war on a lie and Moore admited without reservation that he had no idea whether or not it was true and took some delight in that (thought it was funny). The short clip they played from the documentary at first blush is very damning - Bush talks tough and presidential about the war on terror then (presumably as soon as the camera is "off") says "Now, watch this drive." This snippet is designed to portray W's position as insincere while nothing could be further from the truth. As wrong as he might be, he is very sincere about what he is doing.

But, what Moore did was juxtapose the two sentences snipping out what came between - the second time I watched it the cutaway was more obvious.

He did the same thing in the Columbine documentary to make it look like Heston was cheering the tragedy.

Moore is a smart guy and he knows how to make a movie. And its difficult to criticise Moore without having it look like I'm supporting W (which I'm not). And that is sort of the problem - Moore could care less about accuracy and believes that the end justifies the means. However, that really undermines his credibility with me.

Letterman asked Moore three separate times if the points he made in the film were refutable. Moore appeared to welcome all conservative challengers yet he will not appear on any conservative show to "defend" himself. I would respect him a lot moore (pun intended) if he would meet with and discuss his film with a Sean Hannity or even a Tim Russert. But he won't.

But, I'm not sorry he made the film and I plan on watching it. And there is much I will learn from it but for me, I take everything he says with a grain of salt. If there is another side to the story, you will never hear it from Moore. I treat conservative talking heads the same way.

Also, in a stunning display of impartiality, the review of Farenheit 9/11 on Fox News website has effusive praise for the film.

Fox News review

And, as an aside, Ray Bradbury is really pissed off about the name ripoff and wants Moore to change the name.

Bradbury not pleased.

Moore said he got the inspiration for the movie from an article that mentioned the bin Laden family's alleged privilege. He indicated that he got the title from the subject line of an email sent to him by a fan shortly after the 9/11 tragedy.

But, what Moore did was juxtapose the two sentences snipping out what came between - the second time I watched it the cutaway was more obvious.

Really? I thought there was no editing--that's not the first time I've seen that clip, they showed it on the Daily Show a couple years ago when it first happened. Granted, the Daily Show edits stuff too, I'm just saying it never looked edited to me.

I missed it the first time also. But there is definitly a cutaway betweeen the sentences. It would not come as a shock if Moore borrowed the entire thing from the Daily Show and just dropped it in. Seems like quite a number of elements in and of the film are not Moore's (the title, the story about the bin Laden family flying privilege (which UT seems to be debunking), and now, the marketing clip of the film).

Well, it looks like Michael Moore might have manipulated the facts a little to suit his own position, but does that mean that he is totally off in his arguments? It certainly did not look good for Bush to be holidaying while his country (and the rest of the western world), was in turmoil. If Clarke really did authorise the flights of the bin Ladens and others, without consulting higher up the ladder, then I suppose that we can't blame Bush for that one, but it still leaves questions about the relationship between the bin Ladens and the Bush administration.

No, not by a long shot. Making a movie to trash W is not difficult - he's low-hanging fruit as the saying goes.

But, all I'm saying is that we should probably refrain from calling Moore's films documentaries and call them what they look like and smell like: propoganda films.

That he ever called them documentaries underscores my point.

From your link:

In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: True.

During that same period the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly out of the U.S.: Undetermined.


Did you put this link in your bookmarks before it was corrected?

Tim Russert..maybe. Sean Hannity..from what I've heard about him...HELL NO. You think that he wouldn't try to skewer Moore..on his OWN show? I'd bet money on it. That would be like having Moore on Rush Limpballs' show. :mad:

That page was corrected on March 31st. You know UT is always fair and balanced.

Born with a silver spoon.
"Bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia around 1957 to a father of Yemeni origins and a Syrian mother. His father, Mohammed bin Laden, founded a construction company and with royal patronage became a billionaire. The company's connections won it such important commissions as rebuilding mosques in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

Mohammed bin Laden took numerous wives and fathered about 50 children. Osama was the 17th son, the only born to a later wife. In a society where status within a family is highly important, bin Laden would therefore have been of relatively low rank.

Bin Laden studied management and economics at King Abdul Aziz University in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, coming under the influence of religious teachers who introduced him to the wider world of Islamic politics."

"Yet, even as he is reviled in the West, bin Laden is a hero in parts of the Islamic world, according to intelligence reports. His organization is called al-Qaeda, "the Base," and has approximately 3,000 followers, which he funds with his estimated $250 million fortune. Experts have said that bin Laden could represent a new trend in terrorism—privatization. Until his emergence, most large-scale terrorist organizations are believed to have been connected to governments. With his money and disciplined followers, however, bin Laden is believed to have the ability to launch even more devastating terrorist attacks. He has not denied that he is seeking nuclear or chemical weapons, saying that it is a religious duty to defend Islam.

Bin Laden has been disowned by most of his family, including a brother, Sheik Bakr Mohammed bin Laden, who has established scholarship funds at Harvard Law School, and the Harvard School of Design. In 1991 his Saudi citizenship was revoked."

The bin Laden family is wealthy and politically connected but can hardly be blamed for the black sheep.

;)

Snopes is good, but they're not authoritative. In this case I saw the issue discussed and the flyout happened after the end of the ban, I'm pretty certain.

As far as the golf shot, I saw it on The Daily Show too. It's pretty silly and irrelevant. It's taken out of the larger context, which is where Bush was on vacation at the time and relentlessly pursued by members of the press. Big effing deal.

A serious challenge to the administration would be that there has been a much deeper disconnect between the press and the administration, that the administration treats the press as seriously hostile and that this disconnect has hurt the administration's ability to communicate effectively with the public.

But Moore doesn't want to seriously challenge. He wants to mock, along with all the other people who want to mock, so that he can make millions of dollars. When asked about his approach he has justified it on the basis of the fact that he makes a mint at it. So I say, buyer beware.

It was your link. ;)

The New Yorker then.