he hopes the film will convince Americans to vote Bush and his cronies out of office. It is, however, very convincing.

He doesn't spare the Democrats either. He chastises them for being spineless in their criticisms of and stands against Bush and the war on Iraq.

This is because he is a Socialist. He has said so much. And based on things he has said about this country (while in other countries) you can easily infer that he hates America the way it is now.

He is an America Hating Socialist that while saying in his books the American Dream is dead, is a living example of why America Works. He has gotten ahead, coming from a poor family, working hard and doing what he does best, to become a multi-millionaire.

That kind of success would not exist in a country like he would like to see.

Thank you for the review. I wanted to read some from the man on the street, or in the metroplex or whatever. And, bonus, it is a thoughtful and literate review. (I barely made it through the train wreck of a review of Reno 911.)

The opening box office for the film is good all over, Randy. Looks like it may exceed Michael Moore's hopes.


Tom, saying 'Michael Moore hates America' is so-o-o-o redundant. You would be better off spending that time cleaning your (fourteen, is it now?) guns.

It's redundant because it's true. When he says things to a Canadian audience like trying to be more American is like pissing on your pants, in my mind, shows contempt and hatred for the country which has allowed him to be so successful.

(Scratching head.) But, Tom, you and your political brethren don't want Michael Moore to be successful. You would have stopped him if you could have. So, it seems to be that M.M. has overcome the opposition of many of his countrypersons. It also seems to me that you have it backwards -- y'all show hatred and contempt for M.M. Considering his apparently sincere concern about the American working-class, I'm doubtful he returns that rancor.

BTW, how many guns do you own now?

You assume we don't want him successful because that's what HE says. And as far as his concern for the working middle class, that is Bunk.

In Bowling for Columbine he was upset about the fact that they made people bus to jobs instead of being on welfare. He said George Bush kicked people off welfare. (actually Clinton signed that into law)

Seems like he would just be happy with those people living off the public trough and not working, which is worse for them and worse for the hard working middle class he claims to care for because of higher taxes on those people.

And why do you care how many guns I own. That is irrelevant. That is only a point to make in your head because in your mind the millions of American gun owners are just crazy fanatical backwards thinking people.

"your head because in your mind the millions of American gun owners are just crazy fanatical backwards thinking people"

Which by your stunning examples on here and on your website you prove is totally unfounded!

You still haven't said anything about the child rapes in Thailand. I'm still curious as to your response to that.

Well as far as the child rapes in Thailand, Thailand is still a country which can be dealt with by means of diplomatic solutions and they pose destabilizing threat to that region of the world. I will admit that more should be done, and can be done.

Iraq was a destabilizing threat and could not be dealt with through diplomatic means, so war was a last resort. After nearly a dozen years and countless UN resolutions, war was the last resort.

"Iraq was a destabilizing threat..."

Oddly enough, that hasn't been proven.

"Thailand is still a country which can be dealt with by means of diplomatic solutions..."

Funny, I don't see anyone up in Congress or up in the White House worried about this...

Hmmmm.... Maybe if they find some oil up in Thailand, things might change for the children.

Until then, while we wait years for these "diplomatic solutions" we'll just let the children in Thailand continued to be raped under the full knowlege of the Thai goverment. The Thai goverment is not a destabilizing threat therefore it is okay for the children to be raped there until we get around to stopping it.

Thanks for the clarification.

Many of us who are not American, and living outside the USA, see the war in Iraq as driven by oil, and oil only. Thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, and hundreds of innocent US soldiers, in order to get the black gold flowing down the pipelines once again, from the land with the second largest oil reserves.

Moore connects the dots in this movie. If anything, it is very saddening and disheartening, but not unexpected, to see the most powerful men and women in the world driven so fanatically by pure, abject greed.

No one is unhappy to see Saddam Hussein out of power. The larger question is: would Bush and his cronies have given a rat's ass about Iraq if it had no oil?

Moore, and others like Al Franken, Craig Unger, Joe Conason, Eric Alterman, are finally getting under the thin skin of the right, including the commentators, pundits and authors, who for years have railed against the left without much resistance. It's like the kid in school, picked on for years by the bully, finally standing up to him. The bully doesn't know how to react, so runs away (like, to the courts, to block a book from appearing because of its title.)

Moore is as much a US patriot as Rush Limbaugh. The difference is, they are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Calling Moore names is no more effective than doing the same to Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or Ann Coulter. The beauty of all of this is that in your country, and mine, we can criticize our politicians, and each other, and not necessarily worry about getting thrown in jail or burned and hung in effigy.

Moore's detractors have their forums to react to him. A movie is about to appear that calls him on the carpet, as is a book, Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man. That a movie and a book like these can appear is what makes your country great.

Moore is out there, and he's getting his message across. Deal with it.

Many of us who are not American, and living outside the USA, see the war in Iraq as driven by oil, and oil only. Thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, and hundreds of innocent US soldiers, in order to get the black gold flowing down the pipelines once again, from the land with the second largest oil reserves.

Moore connects the dots in this movie. If anything, it is very saddening and disheartening, but not unexpected, to see the most powerful men and women in the world driven so fanatically by pure, abject greed.

No one is unhappy to see Saddam Hussein out of power. The larger question is: would Bush and his cronies have given a rat's ass about Iraq if it had no oil?

Moore, and others like Al Franken, Craig Unger, Joe Conason, Eric Alterman, are finally getting under the thin skin of the right, including the commentators, pundits and authors, who for years have railed against the left without much resistance. It's like the kid in school, picked on for years by the bully, finally standing up to him. The bully doesn't know how to react, so runs away (like, to the courts, to block a book from appearing because of its title.)

Moore is as much a US patriot as Rush Limbaugh. The difference is, they are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Calling Moore names is no more effective than doing the same to Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or Ann Coulter. The beauty of all of this is that in your country, and mine, we can criticize our politicians, and each other, and not necessarily worry about getting thrown in jail or burned and hung in effigy.

Moore's detractors have their forums to react to him. A movie is about to appear that calls him on the carpet, as is a book, Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man. That a movie and a book like these can appear is what makes your country great.

Moore is out there, and he's getting his message across. Deal with it.

Here is the difference between conservatives and liberals:


[Conservatives believe and practice that] America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance--and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.


The goal of the "liberals"--as it emerges from the record of the past decades--was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot--by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli

-Ayn Rand

If we can agree to disagree, than we are better off. I believe in one thing, and you believe in another.

...enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rotÂ--by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli


Right- that is what liberals do.

So if that is the case, the Bush is a liberal. The size of the current government or the Patriot act ring any bells?

Oh, I agree, he has many liberal characteristics. He has expanded the welfare state way too much, and increased the size and scope of the federal government.

Though I disagree that he has no direction, he does have a vision of rebuilding the middle east and defeating terrorism. (according to him)

(Pursing lips.) Gee whiz, Tom! Even though I drop in to your blog from time to time to be, um, educated, I did not realize that the policies of the George W. Bush administration have "many liberal characteristics." Perhaps you could expand on that.

Furthermore, as a gal who knows how to field strip an M-16, I'm understandably curious about your stable of hot ba--- oops! guns. My guess of 14, based on the two new purchases you've blogged about, is about right, isn't it?

I just drank a cup of Democratic Hate Soup cooked up by its new propaganda
chef, Michael Moore.
After watching his “Fahrenheit 9/11,� one has to have a certain admiration
for Michael Moore.
It takes a definite genius to be able to manipulate well-educated people.
Of course, I was shocked by Moore’s film and his blatant disregard for
truth.
But even more startling was the reaction I have heard this week from other
people who saw the “documentary� and who are Republicans, conservatives or
political moderates â€" but all well-educated.
All of them were overwhelmed by Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11� and said they
already have decided to vote against Bush and for John Kerry. I count now about
a
dozen people that I would not have believed could be so affected, including
one of my doctors.
Clearly, the Republicans and supporters of George Bush must take this movie
with the utmost seriousness.
NewsMax predicted that this movie would be part of the media offensive
against Bush.
In NewsMax Magazine’s June cover story, “The Media War On Bush,� we
detailed the $2 billion â€" our estimate â€" that will be spent with “in
kind� media
coverage to defeat Bush this November.
This in-kind donation comes in the form of slanted nightly news coverage,
the print media, books and even Hollywood’s efforts.
We noted that Michael Moore’s film would be a major contribution for Kerry,
as it was being shown in theatres nationwide. Of the $2 billion media war
against Bush â€" which we believe to be a conservative estimate â€" we
calculated
that Michael Moore’s “documentary� would be an in-kind contribution of
approximately $20 million for the Kerry campaign.
As it turned out, that figure was way too conservative.
The Moore film raked in over $20 million on its opening day.
It is now evident that the Moore film will have a value of at least $250
million for the Kerry effort to win the White House.
Moore’s concoction of Hate Soup is being completely swallowed. This November
it will sway independent voters, completely energize the Democratic base â€"
and lead to increased donations to the Kerry coffers.
Moore’s Hate Soup can be countered, but only if we can regurgitate chunk by
chunk the propaganda that has been so willingly swallowed.

'The Real Intent'
Moore claims that this is a movie about Bush’s failure to handle the events
that led up to 9/11.
But the opening of the documentary reveals that his real intent was to
inflict as much political damage on Bush as possible.
He does so by having viewers relive his version of the 2000 election crisis
in an effort to show that George Bush a) is an illegitimate president and b)
stole the election from Al Gore.
I’m not sure what the election controversy has to do with Sept. 11.
But in discussing this event, Moore uses the same old arguments that somehow
Bush stole the election and squeaked through in Florida.
In a sequence of footage he shows news clips of the 2000 Election Night
where the major news anchors flip-flopped their prediction that Al Gore had won
Florida.
But he could just as easily have shown clips of the networks declaring Gore
the winner of Florida â€" an hour before all the polls in the state had closed.
As Republicans have pointed out, this had the effect of lowering Republican
turnout by as many as 50,000 votes in Florida’s Panhandle.
As it turned out, Bush won Florida by a squeaker â€" but there is little
dispute that had the media not acted deviously in calling the election early in
Florida, Bush would have won quite handily.
I might add that Moore could have noted that the major networks had been
asked not to call Florida before the polls closed â€" as they customarily do for
every other state â€" because it could skew the results.
But Moore did not even mention that issue. His intent is not to get to the
truth behind Sept. 11. It is instead to remind people that Bush is an
illegitimate president and to stir up Democratic ranks to come out on Election
Day.
’The Saudi Stuff’
My doctor pointed out to me that he was so bothered by “the Saudi stuff�
â€"
meaning the Bush family connections with the Saudi Arabians revealed by Moore
â€" he will not vote for Bush.
Moore claims that Bush never really held the Saudis accountable for their
ties to al-Qaida because of these “family connections.�
As I asked my doctor, “Why, then, are the Saudis trying to defeat Bush this
election year?�
He looked shocked. If the Saudis really wanted Bush re-elected this year,
gas would be selling for $1.25 a gallon today. Gasoline is still closer to $2 a
gallon â€" and even if the price drops, it will only marginally help Bush.
Clearly the Saudis could have made a major contribution to Bush by revving the
U.S.
economy this year with low oil prices.
The Saudi Arabians may like the Bush family on a personal level. But they
are clearly afraid of him and his national security team, which has held Saudi
Arabia accountable as never before.
Gone are the Clinton-Gore days when the Saudis could walk all over the
United States, pay lip service to us and give huge amounts of money to al-Qaida
front groups and other terrorists around the world.
Remember the Khobar Towers bombing? During the Clinton years, the Saudis
would not even cooperate with the FBI’s investigation.
The Saudis did not want Bush to be so vigorous in his war on terror. That is
clear.
But by showing a montage of pictures of George Bush and his father shaking
hands and smiling with Saudi princes, Moore tries to “prove� that somehow
the
relationship was improper.
The Moore “evidence� sounded like something out of a Lyndon Larouche
propaganda flyer: a photograph of the queen of England smiling with the
president of
the United States. Aha! This proves Larouche’s contention that the British
monarchy secretly controls the White House.
So much for conspiracy theories created out of “guilt by association�
techniques. Saudi Arabia is a major country in the Middle East and one of the
most
vitally important for the United States. It is smart and good politics for the
Bush family and other American leaders to have close and developing ties with
the Saudis.
Nor did I buy the claim that Michael Moore uncovered some huge smoking gun,
as he suggests in his film.
As it turned out, one of the men who served with George Bush in the National
Guard during the 1970s was James R. Bath.
Bath has gone on to have ties with the Saudi Arabians. So what? Moore also
implies that Bath funded George Bush’s business enterprises with Saudi money,
a
claim already categorically denied.

’9/11: Bush Did Nothing to Stop It’
It’s interesting that Michael Moore never focuses on the Clinton
administration’s culpability in Sept. 11.
The Sept. 11 Commission and other intelligence reports say that the plot to
bomb the World Trade Center began in the mid 1990s â€" as early as 1996.
During the same time, numerous U.S. targets were hit, with very little
retaliation from the U.S.
For five years the terrorists plotted, with many entering and training in
the U.S. during the period Bill Clinton was president.
Yet there is almost no discussion of this in Michael Moore’s film. Why?
On Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had been in office for less than eight months.
Anyone who knows how the federal government functions would know that the
president, in such a short time, would have limited influence over the
government and its policies.
For instance, only three political appointments had been made to the
Pentagon by Sept. 11; one of those was Donald Rumsfeld.
At the time of 9/11, most of the government was still staffed by the
appointments Bill Clinton had made â€" including at the CIA and FBI and almost
every
other federal agency. Certainly President Bush has some culpability in the
events of Sept. 11, but reasonable people should wonder why he receives all the
blame while his predecessors receive none.
’But Bush Knew They Were Going to Hijack Planes’
As the 9/11 Commission report has revealed, Bush was informed in a memo in
August 2001 that al-Qaida was intent on hitting targets within the U.S. and was
even considering hijacking planes.
Moore uses this information again as a smoking gun that Bush should have
done more and that somehow he should have taken steps to stop the hijackers.
Perhaps.
But I also have a feeling that the president gets warnings of this type â€"
some real, some not so real â€" every day.
Recently, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that a day did not go by
that his police commissioner or some other agency chief called him about a
potential threat to the city.
Obviously, almost all such threats never materialize. What was Bush supposed
to have done had he known there were potential hijackings under way?
He could have notified the public about that threat and every other threat
the U.S. gets.
Criticism of the administration since Sept. 11 has led the administration to
regularly reveal “chatter� that suggests threats.
Moore, of course, doesn’t applaud the administration for doing so. He
suggests in his film that the terror warnings are just an effort to scare and
manipulate the public.
In the Moorewellian world we live in, Bush is damned if he does and damned
if he doesn’t.
And the CIA intelligence report warning of hijackings never informed the
president that that terrorists were planning to use commercial jets as flying
bombs.
This was a significant failure of our intelligence agencies, particularly
the CIA and FBI, which failed to take into account available intelligence that
hijackers were preparing to attack the U.S. â€" and not alerting the president
to
previous intelligence showing that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups had
plotted to use jets as human flying bombs.
Had that possibility been mentioned in that August memo, I would agree that
Bush would be more culpable for not having been more proactive. But that
possibility was never mentioned, and I don’t believe it was Bush’s role
dream up
what the hijackers might do.
’Weapons of Mass Destruction’
The pretext of the war was that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.
primarily because he was developing weapons of mass destruction.
The U.S. cited some evidence that appears now to have been faulty. But what
is clear is that Saddam Hussein refused to abide by numerous U.N. resolutions
and treaty obligations he had signed that required full inspections.
Is it our fault that we held this rogue leader accountable to international
law?
Weapons of mass destruction include biological, chemical and nuclear
weapons. We now know that Saddam had a biological and chemical program and was
trying
to develop nuclear programs.
Can we fault the president for acting on the best of intentions? What would
have happened if Bush had not acted and five years later Saddam had killed
250,000 Americans with an anthrax attack?
Also missing from Moore’s film are the serious statements that Clinton and
many of his top officials made about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
In one warning, Clinton said that Saddam Hussein was developing such weapons
and that he could use them if he was not stopped.
Had Moore, in fairness, showed just one of these Clinton clips, the claims
of his “documentary� would have been eviscerated.
No, in Moore’s Hate Soup, Bill Clinton is not an ingredient.
’Blacks and the War’
Michael Moore is very clever.
He is working on behalf of the Democratic Party for this year’s election.
He offers some passing criticism of the Democrats, but he is still rooting
for them.
In his film, a maimed soldier from Iraq says that he’s voting Democrat this
year and doing everything he can to help the Democrats. (Funny, that’s what
Michael Moore’s also doing!)
Moore knows that the African-American constituency is a key component of the
Democratic Party. The Democrats need the African-American vote to win.
Typically, they’ve been getting 90 percent of the vote. But in a close
election, every percent counts. They can’t have blacks go off the reservation,
so
to speak â€" not this year.
So Moore cleverly begins his film with the Congressional Black Caucus’
efforts to stop the Electoral College procedures. (I am baffled as to what this
has
to do with Sept. 11.)
And again, Moore implies throughout his film that somehow young black men
are being used as cannon fodder for Bush’s war on terror. It is they, not
white
young people, being sent to Iraq to die.
Moore never makes this claim outright because he knows that statistical
evidence shows blacks are not dying in Iraq in any disproportionate number to
their percentage of the U.S. population. (A similar myth was created by the
media
during the Vietnam War. The statistics show that blacks died in Vietnam at
about the same percentage as their population.)
The clear impression from Moore is that Bush is an elitist white racist,
along with many congressmen who don’t have their sons or daughters in the U.S.
military.
Moore conveniently fails to note that a very large number of congressmen and
senators have served in the military and risked their lives for their
country.
He also fails to inform his audience that there is probably a very small
number of congressmen and senators with children of recruiting age.
On so many points and in so many ways, Michael Moore is extremely
manipulative.
I was shocked at the end of the film when people clapped thunderously. It
looked like an audience that was sophisticated and educated.
But they apparently don’t even know the basic facts of what’s happening in
the world today.
I do believe that the Bush administration made mistakes in the Iraq war.
Mistakes are made in all wars.
But I do not believe that Bush was wrong in going after Saddam Hussein or
had a malevolent intention â€" as Moore suggests.
The Real Michael Moore
I remember when I first watched Moore’s first blockbuster documentary,
“Roger and Me.�
I knew it had a liberal bias but I sort of liked Michael Moore.
How can you not like an average guy going against a corporate giant such as
GM’s chairman, Roger Smith?
It is human nature to like to see David take on Goliath.
So it is easy to understand the cheers as Moore takes on the president, vice
president and leadership of the country â€" and shows apparent hypocrisy.
I understand the positive reaction Moore’s film has received by many.
But who is Michael Moore?
When Michael Moore’s TV series (which turned out to be a very big flop) came
out in the 1980s, I tuned in.
I thought it would be as interesting as his “Roger and Me� documentary.
But instead of taking on the rich and powerful, the typical show
demonstrated time and time again Moore’s belief that the average American is
stupid,
ignorant, dumb.
It’s no contradiction that Moore went to Europe recently and said that
Americans were “stupid.�
In “Fahrenheit 9/11,� he hits a nerve again, because he takes on what
appear to be the rich and the powerful and the elite. But what he doesn’t
reveal is
that he hates the rest of us too.
Take, for example, the grieving mother in the film who lost her son in Iraq.
She talks of her love for Jesus and how she has relied on Him during this
period.
It was a touching moment, especially for anyone who is a Christian. But one
wonders why Moore would use that footage, because he is like a lot of other
liberal elitists who don’t exactly have a history of attending Billy Graham
crusades.
In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if his next documentary is about “Jesus
Freaks.�
So that’s the bottom line: Michael Moore is not interested in truth, he’s
interested in political action, achieving goals and manipulating people. He can
do “whatever it takes� to achieve the objectives.
It’s a dangerous pot of soup Michael Moore has concocted, and it is sad that
so many people haven’t discovered that it is a deceptive potion.