Fahrenhype 9/11

I completely disagree with the review or comments made by the user from Colorado. Clearly a liberal who supported John Kerry and Michael Moore....but thought that seeing this movie made him/her neutral.

This film completely rebukes what I like to call, Faran-crap 9/11 by Michael Moore. Forget the lies told, forget the facts that were completely embellished....what strikes me more than anything are the interviews with the same people from Michael Moore's film who had NO IDEA they were going to be a part of that film and that they do not support MM at all! The Oregon coast cop who was giving interviews to about the lack of security goes on to explain that the coast is secured by the US Coast Guard (hence the name of that outfit!)Another is the Army Reservist who accidentally blew his arms off. It is interesting to know that he was not even talking to MM, but rather, Brian Williams of MSNBC News and that he doesn't support MM or the film! Very important points being made in this film.

Love it or leave it is my motto. Someone tell Michael Moore, we don't want him here anymore!

The first time I watched this documentary, right after it was available on video, I was pretty disappointed. I thought it was boring and that it was not exhaustive enough in pointing out the lies and fabrications of Moore's movie. I was anticipating and looking forward to a reel by reel dissection of Moore's obvious deceptions and inaccuracies. I would have preferred a line item of lies being counted out and explained similar to Dave Kopel's "59 Lies" that he found in Moore's movie.

However, I decided to watch it again nearly a year later. Upon review, I found it to be quite comprehensive. The opening segment effectively defends the President's decision not to panic in front of the school children and illustrates the petty and mean behavior of his detractors. Those who would for example, accuse him of reading a children's book upside down. It also points out factual mistakes by Moore. Here are other points that the documentary covers; Moore's ridiculous assertion that "there is no terrorist threat", the phony Pantograph article that stated that Gore won the recount, Moore's assertion that 911 was no big deal, the misleading segment about the Unocal Afghan pipeline, the left wing conspiracy theories about the Carlyle Group, the Bush and Bin Laden families, also the blaming of Bush tax cuts by Moore as being responsible for the cutbacks in Oregon State Police, the effectiveness of the Patriot Act in combating domestic terrorism, and debunking the tiresome mantra of the left about blood for oil. The commentators also point out the seriousness of Islamic terrorism. That it should not be underestimated, and we as a nation should not become complacent or engage in appeasement as we did for the twenty years leading up to 911 and the late 1930's during the rise of Hitler. The commentators advocate and support preemption at least in terms of the liberation of Iraq and agree with the Bush Doctrine of eliminating terrorists and the regimes who provide safe harbor for them.

In broader terms the documentary illustrates the hateful ideology of the left in the USA. A hatred of their country, the military and of course President Bush. It also points out several ironic twists in the positions taken by Moore and others like him. One is the conspiracy about oil. The documentary illustrates opportunities where the U.S could have conquered oil markets, but chose liberation and freedom instead. Whether it was the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan or the liberation of Iraq(they failed to mention Kuwait), the intentions of the U.S were true and just. We didn't "steal" the oil. Our support for Israel, a non-oil producing country, and our opposition to so many oil producing countries. Oil sanctions against Iraq in the 90's, an embargo against Iran's oil. One other point made was the way Germany, France, Russia and China, prior to the war in Iraq, sold their souls and U.N votes for the promise of Iraq's oil. It is these type of historical facts that Moore ignores, however this documentary does not. The documentary is a bit boring and lacks excitement, but all and all it is worth watching.

This film is basically the film adaptation of the Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911.

The star of the show, Dick Morris... Is someone I can take as truthful... As he actually worked for the Clinton administration as a head executive. Morris and a few Neo Cons like Ann Coulter and a appearance by myself, Zell Miller... Make commentaries on what information Moore had and apply it to what had actually happened.

The coverage of the myths is pretty solid... Except for the Patriot Act... Which they cover the benefits and not the downfalls of it.

But other than that... They basically debunk Moore's lies with a lot of credibility.

I have seen Liberals commenting on this stating that it is stupid, and untrue... I wonder how many of those same people even questioned Moore's conclusions on a lot of things.

For turning from the Dark Side and telling the whole world the truth about Bill, Hillary, and yes Mike Moore. You have the dirt on all these fakers and these facts ring true just like Fahrenheit's didn't. Mr. Moore made up 38 seemingly believable lies with his absurd piece of garbage which almost every reviewer on this site lambasted and after watching FahrenHYPE it's amazing how many I didn't spot on F9/11 though I quickly picked up on the most outrageous - terrorism is not an imminent threat (minus 3000 dead U.S. citizens), Saddam is a great guy who loves peace and freedom, and of course Gore winning the 2000 election which no rational human being could ever even think much less come out and say. Moore's crazy dream is our worst nightmare. This part of my review is specifically for Moore: Your appearance at that conference at the beginning of this film proves you are a insane, self-deluded, tree hugging, big mouthed sore loser who can't control himself even when you are giving an acceptance speech for an Academy Award. May God help you gain sanity and the left-wing idiots who believe you. And thanks to Ron Silver and Zell Miller for helping Morris out with this one and finally setting the record straight. This is the must see documentary of the year.

There's this dead guy lying in the morgue with a bullet in his chest. I think you might have been the one who shot him. The guy's wife agrees with me. So does the District Attorney.

So what do we do?

In the world of Michael Moore, he would be allowed to file a 'Friend of the Court' briefing on celluloid and your guilt or innocence would be decided by that alone. But in this country, we have a trial. The prosecution presents its case, and then the defense calls out errors in the prosecution's logic, problematic witnesses and inconsistencies in the timeline. Then the prosecution gets to call out how the defense is taking things out of context…back and forth it goes.

The DA is not supposed to be objective. If he becomes aware of something that would suggest your innocence, he is not obligated to come forward with it.

The defense is also biased. If he knows you shot the guy, he's not supposed to give the evidence to the court or the prosecution.

So both parties are expected to work toward a singular goal: Getting the outcome they want. It is impossible for both of them to achieve this. This is not a perfect way to get to the truth, but it's the very best way there is. So all the Michael Moore fans out there whining and sniveling about 'the 'no terrorist threat' remark was taken out of context' and 'FahrenHYPE has become exactly what it decries' are whistling in the wind.

What this film did was yank Michael Moore out of the 'judge's' chair, and reduce him to being just one of two diametrically opposed advocates. This is good. Most of us, and I do mean nearly all thinking people who were paying attention, are far more comfortable with Moore in the role of one of the advocates, instead of him simply telling people what to think. For one thing, this makes him truly accountable for the factual distortions in his material, regardless of whether the distortions were intentional or not. So liberals, it might make you look good to your fellow liberals to go on about 'it became exactly what it's complaining about' but this idea misses the point: Moore has freedom of speech, and so do people who disagree with him.

What's written above deals with how FahrenHYPE affects the political dialog in our nation. What is written below, deals with quality and whether it's worth seeing.

Well, the election is over, so this is a peek in the rear-view mirror but you already know that. The film has been attacked for being a mouthpiece of conservatives, but this is incorrect. It's very obvious someone has gone to considerable trouble to recruit democrats into the project. This is powerful. Here is Clinton's political adviser, a distinguished senator from Georgia, a school principal who didn't vote for Bush, and a famous former mayor of New York. All Democrats, and all of them taking considerable time and trouble to appear in a documentary refuting the work of Michael Moore, narrated by a liberal Hollywood actor.

After the film shoots down point by point the issues that Fahrenheit was trying to raise, you'll see a pattern emerge: Michael Moore has a tactic of presenting only the side of the story he wants to present. There is no big surprise here, after all this is something we 'know' about documentaries. The thing of it is, though, we may 'know' of the tactic but it is difficult to achieve a reckoning of how much damage this can do to the truth, or how convincing a documentary can be when the material therein is deceptive. This is going to come as a surprise to the Michael Moore fans, especially to the ones who have been memorizing the Fahrenheit arguments and repeating them word for word in the e-mail, thread postings, and chat rooms. This is why (see above) you want to have two diametrically opposite advocates each attacking the weaknesses in the arguments of the other, when you really want to learn the truth.

And you should let that process go for awhile, before repeating what someone said.

I suspect many of the Michael Moore fans who say they didn't like this film, are quietly undergoing a subtle change in their habits of parroting the Fahrenheit arguments wherever they can. They may not like the direction in which this film leaned, and they'll never admit to anyone they learned a valuable lesson, but learn it they did. It can be hazardous to willingly become a walking sandwich board for someone else, especially someone with as fragile a reputation for telling the truth as Michael Moore.

So yes it's worth seeing. If you're prejudiced against Michael Moore, you probably have a lot of liberal buddies constantly badgering you about 'did you see it yet, did you see it yet' insinuating that you're 'ignorant' until you have seen Michael's 'documentary.' Well now you can tell them you saw a documentary of the documentary – did THEY see it? And you didn't give Michael Moore one single dime out of your pocket.

And as I've written already, if you're prejudiced in favor of Moore – there is a lesson for you here. I suspect the most loudmouthed among the Michael Moore fans are going to nervously scan through this piece, just to get a feel for how much they've been had. Now that you've echoed some of the lies and distortions in Fahrenheit, it's better to get a heads-up on how someone is going to nail you to the wall on it, than to let the nailing proceed while being completely oblivious to how it's going to come about.