Hollywood abuzz about 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Find a Conversation
Hollywood abuzz about 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
| Sun, 06-13-2004 - 2:23pm |
"...and this country is really in the mood for somebody to tell ’em what they should think, what to do.â€
That's exactly what democrats want--to tell the American people what we should think and what we should do. Unbelievable, he just gave away their secret! I'm glad I can think for myself, thank you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5050832/
And how about the celebrity turnout for the premiere? Not a real shocker to see Martin Sheen, Demi Moore, Drew Barrymoore, et al excited to be there. And how about Camryn Manheim who was also there, quoted, "A lot of us look to Michael Moore to uncover the real truth." ROFL.
*sigh* These people...


Pages
Moore's Public Service
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 2, 2004
Since it opened, "Fahrenheit 9/11" has been a hit in both blue and red America, even at theaters close to military bases. Last Saturday, Dale Earnhardt Jr. took his Nascar crew to see it. The film's appeal to working-class Americans, who are the true victims of George Bush's policies, should give pause to its critics, especially the nervous liberals rushing to disassociate themselves from Michael Moore.
There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?
And for all its flaws, "Fahrenheit 9/11" performs an essential service. It would be a better movie if it didn't promote a few unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren't the reason why millions of people who aren't die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn't. Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven't been doing their job.
For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes, when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children. Nobody had told them that the tales of Mr. Bush's decisiveness and bravery on that day were pure fiction.
Or consider the Bush family's ties to the Saudis. The film suggests that Mr. Bush and his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the ambassador known to the family as Bandar Bush, have tried to cover up the extent of Saudi involvement in terrorism. This may or may not be true. But what shocks people, I think, is the fact that nobody told them about this side of Mr. Bush's life.
Mr. Bush's carefully constructed persona is that of an all-American regular guy — not like his suspiciously cosmopolitan opponent, with his patrician air. The news media have cheerfully gone along with the pretense. How many stories have you seen contrasting John Kerry's upper-crusty vacation on Nantucket with Mr. Bush's down-home time at the ranch?
But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed, financially and personally, with foreign elites — with the Saudis in particular.
Mr. Moore's greatest strength is a real empathy with working-class Americans that most journalists lack. Having stripped away Mr. Bush's common-man mask, he uses his film to make the case, in a way statistics never could, that Mr. Bush's policies favor a narrow elite at the expense of less fortunate Americans — sometimes, indeed, at the cost of their lives.
In a nation where the affluent rarely serve in the military, Mr. Moore follows Marine recruiters as they trawl the malls of depressed communities, where enlistment is the only way for young men and women to escape poverty. He shows corporate executives at a lavish conference on Iraq, nibbling on canapés and exulting over the profit opportunities, then shows the terrible price paid by the soldiers creating those opportunities.
The movie's moral core is a harrowing portrait of a grieving mother who encouraged her children to join the military because it was the only way they could pay for their education, and who lost her son in a war whose justification she no longer understands.
Viewers may come away from Mr. Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true. For example, the film talks a lot about Unocal's plans for a pipeline across Afghanistan, which I doubt had much impact on the course of the Afghan war. Someday, when the crisis of American democracy is over, I'll probably find myself berating Mr. Moore, who supported Ralph Nader in 2000, for his simplistic antiglobalization views.
But not now. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and the ordinary Americans who paid the price.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02KRUG.html
nobody has said they have a problem with fighting or serving their country? what many people have a problem with is poor planning that has stretched the army too thin, placed troops in danger, lack of critical equipement:
"The perception by Guard and Reserve troops that they get the short end of the stick is driving experienced soldiers out of military service, according to dozens of interviews with National Guard and Army Reserve troops."
Wednesday, December 3, 2003 by United Press International
"Like many other U.S. service members in Iraq, her son was given a Vietnam-era flak jacket that cannot stop the type of weapons used today. It appears that parents across the country are now purchasers of body armor because of the failure of the military to supply soldiers with modern vests."
source:U.S. officials deserve flak for lack of good equipment By Jonathan Turley
Special to the Star-Telegram Sun, Oct. 05, 2003
add to that some veterans are being recalled to duty and in some cases are being sent to iraq even after being declared medically unfit or not given thorough physicals.
"To meet the demand for troops in Iraq, the military has been deploying some National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers who aren't fit for combat.
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SS_032504_Pentagon,00.html
Bush recently ordered $1 billion slashed from the Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare budget, right when thousands of combat veterans need readjustment assistance.
Veterans have plenty to be concerned about, that some came out of service doing just fine doesn't invalidate the concerns of those who are facing issues that affect their lives and those of their families.
alfreda
Hi Graham
Hi Iloveyou54.
Just a friendly reminder. Remember to attack the post not the poster.
Example:
"you makes me sick" a no no.
"Your post makes me sick" okay
Thanks &........
apparently, despite the fact that my son is a marine in active service I was accused of not knowing much about the concerns of the military and that I must depend on mainstream news for my facts.
>>>Soldiers being concerned by the lack of support they will receive when returning home will most certainly not aid in keeping them alive.<<<
Frankly I haven't come across any iraq veterans or soldiers on leave who haven't felt the utmost support from their communities and in america in general. If anything what I hear from veterans groups, and the base, from my son and his friends is they know they are supported. How the public feels about iraq and how they feel about our troops are two seperate issues. Nobody can critisize our troops doing what is demanded of them and doing their duty but we can certainly critisize those that demand things of them that didn't seem necessary (notice rarely anybody faults the war with afghanistan, just iraq)
Pages