Originally posted by: Bovinicus
Originally posted by: Mill
1. Correlation of business deals with the Bin Laden family, or the House of Saud have no bearing on Osama Bin Laden. They've been estranged for a very long time. Some minor relative going to a wedding in Afghanistan is hardly showing any type of shady dealings.
The business dealing with the House of Saud was not supposed to show any relation to Osama Bin Laden. If it was, then that is not how I interpreted it. It was supposed to show that a country which is harboring just as many, if not more, terrorists as either of the countries we attacked as a result of 9/11 has a large amount of money invested in this country. A sizeable chunk of that money has gone into the Bush family's hands. It is interesting to note that we did not attack Saudi Arabia despite this fact.
2. One Congressman he interviewed already said his interview was edited so that it appeared differently than what occurred. If you paid attention throughout the film you'd see the changes in a segment as editing took place. Basically it would be the virtual usage of ellipses. He'd ... and then ... of what someone actually said/did. It is a common trait used when you want to misrepresent something.
I'm sorry to hear that this is the case. I don't really have a rebuttal for this, as I don't agree with this tactic. Granted, not the entire length of any interview is going to be shown. However, if it was edited in such a way as to distort the message, then that is something different entirely. Which congressman was it?
3. He distorted what troops were talking/cheering about, what Bush was talking about, what certain people were talking about. He did the same with Charleton Heston and others in Bowling for Columbine. He will start a segment about X, but then he'll through in an interview from a MUCH different time period to make it appear as if person X was talking about Subject X. Typically this is not the case, and if you are familiar with some of the footage he used, or paid attention to the background in some of the pieces you'd understand that.
Could you be more specific and point out certain instances? It seems to me like this is not really a separate point from #2 that you presented. #2 is merely an example of this.
4. Moore has someone claim that the Saudis had a 7% stake in our economy. Again, not true. Total personal wealth is estimated in the 40-60 trillion range. The number used by the man Moore was interviewing was 860 billion. Moore conveniently rounded that to 1 trillion, so I'll be "fair" and use that number. Do you know what that means? Saudis account for about 2% of total wealth in American, and the was no PROOF that the numbers expressed(the one trillion) was even accurate. It wasn't even an estimate, but a total guesstimate. Remember this was INVESTMENTS and MONEY in American companies, banks, etc. It isn't talking about GDP, but person wealth. Once again a complete distortion/lie.
This may be true, but the point is the Saudis have quite a large sum of money invested in this country.
5. The National Guard Video was edited to make it appear as if no one is ever told they might be called up. True that the National Guard has rarely been used for Overseas deployment, but our ranks were very thin after a period of military reduction from 92-00. Anyone who VOLUNTEERS for something should know the risks of it. Moore also makes it appear as if the only opportunity for someone in Flint is to join the military. This is simply not true. There are a variety of grants, loans, scholarships, etc available to students out there. Grants simply require you to have a low net-worth or income. If you looked at the family in Flint you'd see their problem wasn't a lack of money -- their house was actually quite nice. It was because they had a very large family. Finally, scholarships are available to those even in the terrible schools. You can still make decent grades in a terrible school -- in fact I'd hazard to say it might be easier. Anyone can go to a library, use public internet, or read their texts. Having decent grades, decent tests scores and some extra-curriculars will get most people a scholarship in something. Those that can't get grants or a scholarship can get loans. If people are unwilling to do either then joining the service is a good idea.
Where did he make it appear as though no one thought they might be called in for duty? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I can't recall specifics that would make someone think this way. It didn't prompt me to think this way. Obviously the volunteers realized that this was a risk of joining armed forces.
Also, I think you are exaggerating how easy it is for people to get scholarships. I know plenty of people that don't have money for school, yet they were turned down for a scholarship. Only a certain number of people get scholarships each year. That means a certain portion of people who apply are going to get turned down. I think the main idea behind those statements is that the lower and middle class fight the wars, but the upper class declares the wars.
Finally, someone who actually saw the movie with some valid points. I can understand your dislike for the points you presented, but I still feel there was useful information being presented in the movie:
-It's quite possible that Bush did not deserve to win the election in the first place. It was very sad that the people trying to present their case in relation to the African American voters not being counted in Florida were not able to share their case due to a technicality.
-The reaction that Bush had to hearing that this country was under attack was quite the display. I understand that being President in a situation like that is an enromous task. However, I don't think Bush could've handled it too much worst than he did. Also, the fact that Bush ignored the memo from the CIA stating that Bin Laden planned to attack the US with aircrafts (I read this report myself) is not something I appreciate my President doing either.
-The name of the man that was removed from the report related to Bush's military records was an interesting thing to note. I'm not sure how conclusive this was in terms of proving some kind of underhanded connection, but I found it very curious nonetheless.
-Although this idea was the overriding theme in Bowling for Columbine, I think it was important to bring it up again: the element of fear tactics. It does seem as though the invention of the terror alert system was nothing more than a device to bring about fear. What good did it, or could it, possibly serve? In fact, I think he should've spent more time on this point.
-No WMDs have been found in Iraq to date, and it has been well over a year since invasion. This was one of the main reasons for our attacking Iraq in the first place.
-He mentioned that Iraq did not attack us first. This is a good point, because what if other countries just started attacking people because they didn't trust them? War is supposed to be a line of self-defense, not an offensive move.
-Iraq had no connection with Al Queda. Period. The 9-11 commission, which Bush appointed, declared this themselves. Once again, another reason we went to war that was proven incorrect.
-The body count of American soldiers in Iraq as well as footage of Iraqi people dying. This shows how our losses have been very significant, despite quotes from Donald Rumsfeld claminig that this would not be the case. Also, it gives the Iraqi people more of an identity when you see the result of our attacks.
There were plenty of valid points in the movie. However, I do respect your constructive criticism of the movie, because a lot of people simply say, "I hate Michael Moore. He is fat and needs to shave!" I see their point, but it is worthless in connection with the content of the movie.
Facebook
Twitter