If anyone wants any intellectual sources concerning American Foreign policy besides Moore's biased opinion-read Noam Chomsky. He backs his arguments up with actual historic facts.

Just a suggestion..

Or you could read rudey's link to the new republic article, that's a very left-leaning source. Or you could read the article on the Slate, very modernish centrist fare. Or . . . ok, I'm going too far now.

Moore sets true radicalism back decades. No matter what your political affiliation, you MUST recognize this. Please. It's important.

Well, radicalism was always based on an extremely biased version of the truth. Moore's version just happens to include a lot of outright fabrication. Moore just found a way to capitalize on it. Who knows if he's actually sincere. He is certainly getting rich off of it though.

Amen. Radicalism is about a cause or ethos, not a personality. Moore's, Bush's or anyone else's.

No, it does not. Facts may be omitted or arranged to suit Moore's purpose, but it is not fabrication.

Um, does this make it better for you?

Ok ok ok. This is what I got out of the movie. I watched it. This is what made it through my cynicism filter:

The Saudis have a lot of influence in our gonvernment. The Saudis and the Bush's go way back and have a personal as well as financial relationship. This relationship may get the Saudis more access and perhaps sympathy from the grovernment than many other nations have.

Oh, and the Saudis take actions often that are not in the best interests of our country. In fact many of their actions are not those of a friend.

Iraq: The primary reason why we invaded Iraq was because of their stockpiles of WMD. Which we have not found yet.

Patriot Act: LAw enforcement used the 9/11 crisis to pass security measures they had wanted for years but were unable to pass.

I think thats it. I'll have to think about that.

I did enjoy Chomsky's last book... interesting and thought provoking to say the least.

Chomsky somehow really worked himself into a very niche "intellectual" market.

-Rudey
--If he hurt himself, I don't think I'd have sympathy

I wonder if the scene in front of the White House with the mother of the soldier was staged. Moore has been known to stage things in the past, so I wouldn't be surprised if that scene had been staged.

I do think the movie does what it set out to do, get people to think about politics. Michael Moore is an inflammatory person at times, but he's trying to get people stirred up so that they stand up to corporate America.

Yes, maybe Michael Moore built his movie to favor the Democrats (hello, DUH!), but what other president has done enough shady things that there could be a 2-hour documentary made up entirely of 2 or 3 minute clips of examples of what shadiness has gone on?

Here's the thing: I knew that Bill Clinton lied to the Senate and had an affair, and I still thought he was a WONDERFUL president. If you Republicans are fine with knowing that W has made deals with Saudis, was a little sketchy in how he got elected, knew about 9/11 before it happened and still didn't do anything about it, and sat in an elementary school room while the World Trade Center was being attacked, and still want to elect him for another term, more power to you. I just wish that you'd quit acting like the facts presented in the film weren't facts (Michael Moore would have been sued if they weren't... it's called slander). Yes, he presented the FACTS in ways that favored the Democrats, but they are still facts.

Personally, I think that those trying to censor this movie are messing with the U.S. Constitution.

Every single president (except for Carter) since the advent of TV.

Clinton had a ridiculous amount of unethical things. 2 hour documentary? You could make a mini series longer than Roots based solely on Clinton's 2-3 minute clips.

YAAAAAAY, another Moore nutgrabber . . . Let's go to the videotape:

Yes, when he was in the private sector he made deals with the Saudis. Yes, he followed Richard Clark's advice and shuttled the (legit, law-abiding) members of the bin Laden family out of the country on September 13. No, this was not in violation of the no-fly order (Moore here uses timeline errors to make it look like it was). Yes, I will repeat that this was RICHARD CLARK'S IDEA - yet another example of Moore wanting it both ways.

Please explain to me how any of this was unethical - the business world deals, unfortunately, with the Saudis every day.

Please, I'd love to see a verifiable, primary-source study that says anything other than "Bush won the election" as its conclusion, b/c I haven't seen one. IowaStatePhiPsi will now reply with his 'studies' from amazingly bizarre and unheard-of sources, which is cool if you dig tinfoil hats, but show me the New Republic and I'll follow right in line.

Wrong - no matter how Moore spins it, the entire nation was unprepared for this act, from the CIA to the White House. It is completely irresponsible to blame Bush for this (although he certainly shouldn't be lauded either). It was a systemic intelligence breakdown - and the congressional hearings over internal memos etc are damning only in that the information was out there, and NO ONE wanted to believe it. Not just Bush, but advisors from top to bottom.

Honestly, this has been the most severe point of contention in this thread - and the reality is that Bush, to my mind, did the best he could in the situation. Emergency management was on the scene, and honestly he can't go and field-general the emergency efforts. Sure, he looked like a goon sitting there struggling with the book, but I don't see that he had a choice. What would you have had him do? And how exactly would this have helped alleviate the tragedy?

"Facts" is perhaps too strong . . .

I completely agree, whether or not I enjoy Moore's decisions and misrepresentations, it is important that he be able to spread them. However, I wish people would be required to take a background test to ensure they know what the hell really happened, instead of taking Moore's 'facts' at face value.

SIATS is a waste of amazing film talent.