back was funded or given money to by the Bin Laden family. This was before
the hype of this movie and has nothing to do with this movie.
So, I don't know if he tries to work this angle into his movie.
Shawn Regan
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 5:36 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
ok, so I have read the Slate article now. ::shrug::
The author seems very upset that Michael Moore has a point of view. He
says Moore distorts the facts in support of that point of view. It
does seem to be generally accepted that some of this went on in
Bowling for Columbine, which I have not seen. As opposed, let's say,
to the Bush administration understating casualties. Not saying that
one justifies the other, but uh, didn't Moore describe his film as an
op-ed piece?
We'll see. I have decided to go see it and see what he has to say.
Talking to the kids reveals that they want to see a movie but not
necessarily this one, so we will make those separate events.
Hard to know what the point is about the Bin Ladens before I see the
movie but I think the following: 1) perhaps it is true that they were
not terribly safe in the US at that point and 2) If thousands of
people were stranded and the entire town of Gander Newfoundland was
enlisted to help out, why should the bin Ladens be so special?
::shrug::
And by the way, I hope you weren't implying that I wouldn't bother to
get back to this :) I said I would. But Albuquerque has been having
wildfires in the middle of town, and the one the other day wasn't too
far from my house. Had to go; it was time to go be around in case the
wind shifted and they evacuated my kids and my dog. But they got the
fire under control pretty fast.
Dana
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:36:08 -0400, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You should all read the Slate article in full. But for those that won't
bother, let me just add this:
>
> ...And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come
forward to say that (http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx) he,
and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi
departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11,
except that-as you might expect-Clarke is presented throughout as the
brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not
seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family
evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush
administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic
"key to all mythologies."
>
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
>
> -Sam
>
> >sensible words Doug, as usual! :-)
> >-Pat
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >
> >With all the hype I have seen and heard - Extremely negative on the part
> >of the
> >Republican types, and no one being able to truthfully say that Michael
> >Moore has
> >any of his facts wrong, but can only criticize his conclusions, I now am
> >thinking that this is a must see. The "conservative" talk shows are all
> >in a
> >tizzy over this, I mean I have never heard so much concentration on
> >debunking
> >the movie, but absolutely none of them can dispute the facts, so they go
> >after
> >maligning his character instead.
> >
> >Michael Moore looks and acts like a slob, and maybe that is his key to
> >success.
> >
> >I was not all that impressed with Bowling for Columbine, but at least he
> >had his
> >facts straight, even if his conclusions were later questioned.
> >
> >Fahrenheit 911 ---- Add to the "must see" list.
> >
> >
> >Outbound email scanned for viruses.
(e230)________________________________
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
