OK, so I stretched their point a bit.
Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball in Newsweek debunk most of the central thesis's of Fahrenheit 9/11 with facts. These two are not Moore haters either; from the sounds of it they are big fans.
If you haven't seen the movie yet you can read the transcript here (Part 1, Part II, and Part III coming soon).
If you're going to see the movie you owe it to yourself to examine the issues raised. The Newsweek article is a good starting point.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Entertainment
Comments (7)
Excellent points Kevin.... (Below threshold)1. Posted by David Scott Anderson | July 1, 2004 3:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Excellent points Kevin.
1. Posted by David Scott Anderson | July 1, 2004 3:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2004 15:05
2. Posted by Michael Diaz | July 1, 2004 3:47 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Moore has already responded to this criticism on his site.
There is this as well.
2. Posted by Michael Diaz | July 1, 2004 3:47 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2004 15:47
3. Posted by David Scott Anderson | July 1, 2004 4:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The funny thing about this movie is that there are so many conflicting spins on the information, that it is hard to make a determination what is right or wrong. But my take is that it will not matter in the end, some will believe it, others wont. But my mama always said, if something stinks, there is something rotten. Finding what is truly rotten is the biggest challenge I guess.
3. Posted by David Scott Anderson | July 1, 2004 4:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2004 16:11
4. Posted by Christopher Cross | July 1, 2004 8:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The problem with Moore's first "defense" re: the Saudi flights is that Moore never says that commercial flights had resumed by Sept 13.
4. Posted by Christopher Cross | July 1, 2004 8:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2004 20:05
5. Posted by BoDiddly | July 2, 2004 1:21 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Seems to me that the Newsweek story, while debunking some of the F911 accusations, is somewhat conciliatory---in essence giving the feeling that Moore's intent is noble and honourable, but that he just does a poor job of making the case.
5. Posted by BoDiddly | July 2, 2004 1:21 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 2, 2004 13:21
6. Posted by donald express | July 7, 2004 11:35 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
1231231
6. Posted by donald express | July 7, 2004 11:35 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 7, 2004 11:35
7. Posted by Tom S. | July 15, 2004 4:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Half the time it's not even what he's saying - it's the obvious implications that he wants you to draw. I mean, what's does he really want from people who are willing to listen ? I think he honestly hopes to force people into drawing the conclusion that, Bush may have somehow had knowledge of 9/11 and did nothing to stop it. He wont come out and say *that*, for fear of risking what little credibility he has left. But he does, hope that suggestible people will come to this conclusion on their own. So, he grabs bits and pieces of information, totally out of context - and uses other classic propaganda techniques inorder to pursue his agenda. I really blame the suggestible minds out there who can't see through this nonsense.
7. Posted by Tom S. | July 15, 2004 4:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 15, 2004 16:57