The Moore the Democrat Party rallies around Michael Moore as their representative voice, the better I'm liking it.

Yes voters, MICHAEL MOORE is the true face and voice of the Democrat Party.

This Moore film is damn near being part of the election for Kerry, and in my opinion, my require EQUAL TIME for Bush, which means he would be allowed to have a film out the gets his message across.

I know its not the same, because Moore is an "independent film director" and is just trying to "expose the truth", but he is such a lying motherfucker that in his world, he is telling the truth, but unfortuntely, that world of his doesn't coincide with the world that the rest of us live in.

I already have two critiques of 2 scenes in this film, read here:

http://www.juicedthoughts.com/archives/another_post_on_michael_moore_yea_yea_i_know.cfm

here's a thought: movie making is a business...and follows market forces.

so, if the right thinks there's a big market for a more right-leaning message movie: GO AND FUCKING MAKE THE MOVIE!!!

thank you.

Here are a few of Moore's "nuanced facts" from the movie:

* Moore's favorite anti-administration interviewee is former National Security Council aide Richard Clarke. Yet the film never mentions that it was Clarke who gave the order to spirit the bin Laden family out of America immediately after 9/11. Moore makes much of this mystery; why didn't he ask Clarke about it ?

* At one point of the film, he portrays GIs as moronic savages who work themselves up with music before setting out to kill. Later, he depicts them as proletarian victims of a cynical ruling class, who deserve sympathy and honor for their sacrifice.

* The film's amusing (if bordering on racist) Saudi-bashing sequences rely for their effect on the audience having forgotten that President Bill Clinton was every bit as friendly with Prince Bandar (or "Bandar Bush," as Moore calls him) and the Saudi monarchy as his successor. In general, the movie is packed with points that Moore assumes his audience will never check, or are either lies or cleverly hedged half-lies:

* Moore says that the Saudis have paid the Bush family $1.4 billion. But wait â€"the Bushes aren't billionaires. If you watch the film a second time you'll note Moore saying that they paid $1.4 billion to the Bush family and (added very quietly and quickly) its friends and associates.

* Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998. Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan are looking at the idea now, but nothing has come of it so far, and in any case Unocal has nothing to do with it.

* In a "congressmen with no kids at war" stunt, Moore claims that no one in Congress has a son or daughter fighting in America's armed services, then approaches several congressmen in the street and asks them to sign up and send their kids to Iraq. His claim would certainly surprise Sgt. Brooks Johnson of the 101st Airborne, the son of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.). And for that matter the active-duty sons of Sen. Joseph Biden and Attorney General John Ashcroft, among others.

David, Clinton might have been friendly with the Saudi's but does not have the political/financial relationship that Bush has with them.

And also, John Ashcroft is not a congressman.

i'm enjoying very much the constant drumbeat of "lying motherfucker", etc...coming in from people who haven't even seen the movie.

Splitting hairs again are we? So what that John Ashcroft is not a congressman? He was in the past and now he is still a federal employee who advocated ousting Saddam.

As for Bill Clinton, he had close political ties, and likely still does, with the Saudi royal family and if he were President on 9/11, he would have approved allowing bin Laden's family to fly out as well. Every President that I know of, except perhaps President Carter (remember the embargo?) had close political ties with the Middle East. Unfortunately, we cannot afford NOT to have good relations with them.

As for my post, I did not make any direct allegations on the facts of the movie. Obviously, I have not intention of seeing it, but the NY Post reporter who wrote the article did see it. Thus, they, wrote their critique of the movie.

Thanks.

David

Splitting hairs again are we? So what that John Ashcroft is not a congressman? He was in the past and now he is still a federal employee who advocated ousting Saddam.

Just holding you to the same standard you are holding Moore to. Hypocrisy is fun to point out.

The basis of Moores complaint about congressmen voting for a war that their sons are not involved in, does not fit in Ashcroft's case. Ashcroft had no congressional vote for war. If Moore takes liberty in presenting a case, and you gripe about it, I'm just going to point out that you are taking liberty with his premise as well. It's funny how in his case, it's anti-American, and in your case it's splitting hairs.

It's interesting to note also, that you KNOW what Clinton would have done if he were president during the attacks. Been calling the psychic hotline have we?

i saw a screening of farenheit 911 last night and i would think that even if you love bush, you will find some great humor in the flick.

it will be worth the price of admission just to hear john ashcroft sing "when the eagle soars".

what i found is strange is how bush is starting to look like pat robertson. if nothing elese, they would make a cute couple

jack e. jett