Fahrenhype 9/11

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.

This movie completely destroys the credibility of Michael Moore. People in the film acknowledged how they were 'duped' by Moore and taken out of context. Well done. I was embarrassed for Moore while viewing this film. I am a former fan of Michael Moore - but now he will be considered completely ignorant. I am a democrat and was curious about Fahrenheit 9/11 because things in Moore's story just didn't seem to add up logically. The guy clearly has an extreme left wing agenda and will propagate any way possible. If you want to see what even Hollywood insiders think of Moore - a very liberal gang - see Team America: World Police. Surely a ridiculous movie, but it is fun to see Moore get blown up - as he is as a result of FarenHYPE!!!!

All who saw Moore's film should see this. It shows the lies, the twistings, the dishonesty, the other side. There are interviews with people who were used in Moore's film. There are interviews with people who know about various claims that Moore makes. It has a response to most every scene or accusation from Moore's film, and they are not scraping the barrel to answer them: rather they show how absurd Moore was in his claims. It brings context to policy that Moore pretends is Bush acting in self-interest or for oil. But mostly it shows how distorted Moore was in his presentation of soldiers and America and also Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Many of those used in his moves: A) did not know nor give permission to be used in the film B) were used completely out of context so as to turn their words around into opposite meaning C) were mad as hell about it and felt violated and wronged

Their words were used to mean that they were angry at Bush and America when in truth they felt the opposite. If you see these longer interviews with them it shows that the opposite of what Moore insinuates is actually true. Anyone who has seen Michael Moore's film should see this one too.

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.