June 20, 2004

Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out? From Today's New York Times: "...I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career). Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama."
posted by squidranch 20 years ago
  • Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out? No pun intended.
  • I think it would be pretty cool if all links were in fact just a collection of random symbols. That way it would be entirely about curiosity! I wonder if we could somehow hide the URL so that you didn't know what you were getting until you arrived at the page. Enough info for you all?
  • "Check out" as in cash a check or "Check out" as in flew the coop. And Moore's facts better stand the test of time. It's a rare opportunity that such a large Bush critique is going to be such big news. One of the worst travesties is when a cause is undermined or delegitimized because of misguided (deliberate or otherwise) activism (think PETA).
  • Squiddy, yes, thank you. I, at least, appreciate it.
  • Here's a name and password so you don't have to register for the NYT: Name: monkeylike Pass: people I never said I lacked appreciation. I'm saying for everyone to tread the rusty evil blood-stained razor of life lighty. Current comment percentage: 60
  • Roger Ebert: '9/11': Just the facts?
  • homunculus, thank you for posting that. And Squid thanks to you as well. May I ask why Ebert is so articulate and smart in his Q&A Column and in person than he is in his regular columns? It drives me crazy. Anyway, I thought the NTY article was quite good. I've been up and down on my thoughts about the movie for quite sometime and the article has, for the time being, sated some of my concerns. I agree with Ebert that inaccuracy in the film would be disasterous, and it sounds like it is going to be a pretty good portrait. That said, I am rather divided on the Michael Moore issue. I have enjoyed his films (excepting Canadian Bacon and The Big One), but find his books distasteful, disingenuous, and a general disservice to the left in terms of honest debate. How about that alliteration? On another note, I learned the other day about the launch of NRA Radio and found myself upset by what I read as a cheap tunnel around campaign finance reform laws, and an obvious stump for President Bush. Later I thought about this movie and have since been examining my different reaction to the news of both. Obviously my condemnation of NRA Radio is partially grounded in my strong partisanship, but I can't entirely resolve the issue. On the one hand, Moore is an individual, not a lobbying organization, and this distinction is the entire distinction. Still, I feel a bit torn. I suppose, the right answer is to say "let them eat radio" , but I don't know. Thoughts?
  • I never said I lacked appreciation. I'm sorry if I seemed to imply you did! All I meant was I had some idea whether I wanted to click on the link or not, as opposed to this other recent squiddy post, where I had no idea, and so didn't click.
  • Spinsanity and others have done a pretty thorough job in the past exposing some of his liberties, and that worries the hell out of me. Though I agree with Moore on a lot of points, I don't really care for him, mostly because that kind of crap really hurts the cause. He shoots from the hip a little too much for my taste. All I can say is that he had better be on firm ground here, or the backlash from liberals is going to get ugly. It's a shame too that this is going to absolutely eclipse "The Hunting of the President."
  • I'm sorry if I seemed to imply you did! No problem. It's this blasted communication format that's to fault. May I ask why Ebert is so articulate and smart in his Q&A Column and in person than he is in his regular columns? Exactly, though he does ring true sometimes in his reviews, other times it's like he doesn't have a clue. How could anyone like the first two Harry Potter movies better than the third?