Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Fahrenheit 911 pains
Published on June 29, 2004 By Draginol In Republican

This article at the Telegraph (linked below) sums up many of my views on Moore.  Moore's writings and "documentaries" can be entertaining -- if you're already in the looney left wing camp or don't keep up with this stuff on a daily basis.  To the rest of us, it's just frustrating.

In my view, Moore is little more than just some ranting left wing idealogue who has managed to get famous. There's a zillion conspriacy nuts just like him out there. It's like they've elected him king of the loonies to spread his nastiness around.

Given the success of his film, however, it's seems that he's managed to expand his base beyong the fringe and into the mainstream. What this means for Bush is unknown.  Many people I know who are on the right fear that this bodes very ill for those of us who favor the administration's foreign policy.

But I disagree. I have great faith in the average person. I don't know if Bush will win or not (I tend to think he won't for electoral college reasons but that's not related to this film). But I don't think this film will persuade fair minded people.

Moore seems to forget that millions of Americans, such as myself, expected the US to respond in Afghanistan. The whole oil pipeline bullshit is just that -- bullshit.  I don't care if there had been a magical energon cube mine in Afghanistan, after 9/11, we had better had gone in there and removed the Taliban and disrupted Al Qaeda.

Similarly, those of us who favored military action in Iraq could care less about the oil. I don't have any ties to "big oil" and yet somehow I've been in favor of the US removing Saddam since 1998. How is this possible? In Moore's slanted universe, people like me are dupes. Suckered in by greedy puppets of big oil to do their bidding.  I would, on the other hand, argue that we are merely keepers of something Moore obviously lacks -- common sense. 

Oil only comes into play in Iraq in that it was a resource that gave Saddam the capital to acquire things that could do us great harm either in the short or long term.  After 9/11, removing Saddam was a "no brainer". The whole "Bush lied" nonsense strikes me as incredibly ignorant given that everyone thought he had WMDs long before Bush came into office. 

But Moore seems to want to have it both ways. Bush is both a simpleton and a master manipulator of us dupes out in the world. The attacks of 9/11, which were planned during the Clinton years, demonstrate to clear thinking Americans that there is no foreign policy that would satisfy these maniacs. If the appeasement policies of the 90s led to 9/11, I think it's worth trying a more aggressive policy -- which is what Bush is doing. 


Comments (Page 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jun 29, 2004
Of course it was known that there was a terrorist threat before 9/11. There are terrorist threats every day, as there are (probably) threats on the President's life every day. The problem comes in when some people get wrongly branded as terrorists, thus letting the real terrorists go free, and also when "normal" looking terrorists such as McVeigh and Nichols aren't used as a template to profile terrorists. I don't recall people stopping white males of thin or medium build with light brown hair in airports after that, yet all this money is being spent on the 'war on terror'. Here's a non-ethical solution: We simply pull either a Hitler (long term) or Truman (very short term) to get rid of the enemy. No enemy, no terrorists (for a while). Quite simple.
on Jun 29, 2004
Of course it was known that there was a terrorist threat before 9/11. There are terrorist threats every day, as there are (probably) threats on the President's life every day. The problem comes in when some people get wrongly branded as terrorists, thus letting the real terrorists go free, and also when "normal" looking terrorists such as McVeigh and Nichols aren't used as a template to profile terrorists. I don't recall people stopping white males of thin or medium build with light brown hair in airports after that, yet all this money is being spent on the 'war on terror'. Here's a non-ethical solution: We simply pull either a Hitler (long term) or Truman (very short term) to get rid of the enemy. No enemy, no terrorists (for a while). Quite simple.
on Jun 30, 2004
Dragonol..........i agree that bush is kind of an average president but people like moore guarantee his reelection. The wacko propaganda coming from the national media and the hollywood slime is the worst since stalins russia. and the democratic party even support these pigs. if the american people are so dumb that they would elect these kind of unfit leaders, then they will deserve exactly what they will get............AND THAT WILL BE A LOT MORE TERRORISM!!!
on Jun 30, 2004
Thanks Mr Bush for catching Bin Laden... oh..er..
Thanks Mr Bush for stopping Al Queada....oh er...
Thanks Mr Bush for going after the Saudi's instead of Iraq ...oh er...
Thanks Mr Bush for proving Iraq's involvement with 9/11... oh er...
Thanks Mr Bush for finding and destroying Iraq's WMD..oh er....
Thanks Mr Bush for catching Sadam and stopping the murder in Iraq...oh well. Half way there on that one.
Thanks Mr Bush for making the world a safer place...oh..er....
Thanks Mr Bush, for somehow fooling a lot of people into believing you are doing a good job. With that track record, who could possibly question you.
on Jun 30, 2004
then they will deserve exactly what they will get............AND THAT WILL BE A LOT MORE TERRORISM



jeez...taken out of context, that appears to be a terrorist threat nyuknyuk!
on Jun 30, 2004
then they will deserve exactly what they will get............AND THAT WILL BE A LOT MORE TERRORISM
jeez...taken out of context, that appears to be a terrorist threat.

You see, when things like that , and " The wacko propaganda coming from the national media and the hollywood slime is the worst since stalins russia. and the democratic party even support these pigs. if the american people are so dumb that they would elect these kind of unfit leaders," is uttered by an redneck, its not terrosim,,,then its patriotism !(?)
on Jun 30, 2004
me believes micheal mooore epitomises the capitalist monster america is- you got something incendiary, something sensational, you'll make money, you are as sensational as minime or grace jones you'll make money as talol as yao ming you'll make cheddars etc. he is a sham.
on Jun 30, 2004
[sarcasm] Maybe just maybe Moore is part of the right wing conspiracy [/sarcasm]

I hear people say that the movie will help Kerry win the election and I also hear that it will help Bush win the election. I personally don't think it will make a bit of difference either way. I don't like either choice, but I have to chose one of them. I sure as hell not going to vote 3rd party this time.

Since when did Hollywood = left wing kooks? Isn't the Governator an republican? If people are against Hollywood, then don't go to the movies. Don't go see Spider-Man 2. And please for the sake of all that is mankind don't go see Catwoman.

I don't think Fahrenheit 9/11 is about smearing Bush (well maybe it is sort of), but its more about getting people to think instead of blindly listening to the media (right or left) and the politicians. People might not agree with the "means," but he has people talking.
on Jun 30, 2004
"Isn't the Governator an republican?"


Barely, just barely, and basically just because he says so himself...

"I don't think Fahrenheit 9/11 is about smearing Bush "


Then you need to go read Moore's own statements about the movie. He has stated outright his intentions in interviews. He wan't this to be a deciding factor in Bush's defeat. Most people see it as the paranoid diatribe that it is, though. Ever paranoid geeks can be entertaining. Just because they are doesn't mean people will let them decide how to vote.
on Jun 30, 2004
Draginol,

You have not given me or anyone else reading this any reason to not believe what I stated yesterday. I gave you one day to verify or negate what I stated since you stated you would not "scour the net to debunk this kind of nonsense" - I figured that meant right at that time. Also, I told you that I had ALL the stories I mentioned saved and that they were from mainstream media. Strangely, it is as if you did not read that part of my comment or just ignored it.

Your best response was to just name call AGAIN. Your response was not logica - first you state that you will not take time to debunk me and simply ASSUME that what I mentioned was not true. Then you make me out to be a mad man for believing what I have researched by telling me to go wear my tinfoil hat. Totally illogical - You refuse to negate my comments, but then call me crazy for believing them.

Your S.O.P. seems to go like this: If you can't dispute what someone says, just call them a tinfoil hat wearer and a wacko and a conspiracy believer and on and on... Use whatever names you can to take away the PERSONS credibility, and avoid what the person is claiming as truth. That is a good propaganda technique if employed properly, but it needs to be much more subtle and transparent than you have made it if it is going to work.

Do you call anyone who questions what you believe a tinfoil hat wearer? Is it possible that some of what you have been told may not be truth? I certainly feel that some of what I have been told may not be truth, and that is why I write comments - to see what others have to say about what we have been told is fact. Your responses do not do anything to engage others in conversation to pursue facts and logic - which should be a goal of yours if you want to win people over to your side/logic and have them vote Bush.

If I ran my business the way you run your responses, I wouldn't be able to get anyone to work for me. They would say I was closed minded. I try to listen to everyone though (and give GOOD explanations of why I agree or disagree, but not to belittle some else's thoughts by calling them names) and it has kept me in business for more than 20 years in America.

I am extremely disappointed with the level of the responses I have gotten. Draginol, I am asking you nicely to tell me which things that I stated were incorrect - which mainstream media story do you want to tell me is a lie? I am not being smug, I am asking you to help me verify what you are saying/assuming is false. What if I'm right? If Willie Brown was told not to fly on 9/11 before 9/11, then that would indiciate foreknowledge of 9/11 by at least one other government official (in the 9/11 hearings we find out it was Condi Rice that told Willie Brown not to fly! If Condi knew who else knew?). How is it logical to not pursue this line of thought?

Please give me some REAL answers Draginol and keep the propaganda out of it.
on Jun 30, 2004

Anonymous,

You don't understand. I don't CARE if you believe in crackpot conspiracy theories. I don't consider it my lot in life to try to convince people who believe kooky things otherwise.

on Jun 30, 2004
As I said in another discussion:

Terrorists feed off conspiracy theories, you hear it all the time. Moderate Muslims might not be swayed by the existence of Israel, or even the plight of the Palestinian people. On the other hand if they are told that he US is conspiring to make excuses to invade Arab countries, and are offered a disjointed set of spurious facts to prove it, the more gullible are apt to take notice.

Conspiracies take it from philosophical differences to an overt threat. You can't say people aren't more apt to act when threatened.

No different here. Our home-grown terrorists don't just say "Down with the government", they use elaborate conspiracies filled with black UN helicopters and the Trilateral commission to unite the paranoid against a common enemy. Simple angst against the government doesn't lead people to commit acts like Oklahoma City, they have to justify it with an ornate web of evil rushing to destroy their world.

What people like Moore are giving the Arab extremists is a mythology to exploit. The more tangible the mythology, and the more authoritative the source, the more it will stick. Moore has set himself up to be a Bulfinch for at least one chapter of Arabic conspiracy theory, and has done it to make money. I find that pretty mercenary and irresponsible, personally.
on Jun 30, 2004
Draginol,

I think I do understand - you cannot come up with anything to refute what I claim was reported as truth (not what I said I believed) in many different media outlets, so you ridicule instead. (Please count how many times I have personally ridiculed you in our exchange - 0!)

You address none of my points and simply attack my character - AGAIN - for bringing up good questions, saying that I am promoting "crackpot conspiracy theories" when in actuality all I did was say there are some tough questions that need to be asked and pointed out some stange circumstances that may make the average person ask those questions. I offered no theories, only questions and YOU then called it a conspiracy theory to take away the credibility of the questions.

Instead of addressing my questions with good answers (for or against doesn't even matter) you just SCREAM that it isn't true (without ANYTHING TO BACK IT UP) and that anyone who asks about it is a left wing conspiracy theorist crackpot. That is not a good way to exchange ideas or thoughts and is very closed minded.

You can say as many times as you want that I am a wacko, but that does not really answer the questions (THAT A LOT OF US HAVE) regarding 9/11, who knew and when - it avoids them like the plague! By simply calling anyone you don't agree with a wacko or crackpot, you let us all know that you really don't have any answers and if the things I was talking about were true, your world would fall apart, so you ignore those things and SCREAM DOWN anyone who brings them up with name calling.


on Jun 30, 2004
BakerStreet,

You are the one who brought up speculation about Black Helicopters, the TLC, etc. - NOT ME!

Somehow, you equivocate those things with things like Willie Brown being told by Condi Rice not to fly on 9/11 - a clear indiciator of foreknowledge!

Why dismiss what has been reported as fact as a "conspiracy theory" before investigating further? Simply because "it can't be true" is not a good answer when looking at criminal behvior.
on Jun 30, 2004
Anyone still wonder why I don't allow anonymous comments on my blogs?

Do you realize the impossibility of keeping such a conspiracy secret? Do you realize how many people would have been involved in a plot of this kind?

And more importantly, do you think the 9-11 commission was completely in the dark to all of these questions, even though every conspiracy theorist in a tin foil hat can recite them by rote? If not, are you proposing that the 9-11 commission is in on it?

In that case, is there *any* possibility of ever finding anything out? If you can coordinate dozens or hundreds of people to execute the destruction of the world trade center in complete silence, and rig a bi-partisan congressional investigation, do you really think that Micheal Moore, much less some "Anonymous" guy, really has a bead on what really happened? What are the odds of making idiotic mistakes like warning Willie Brown and then carrying off the rest so perfectly?

Come on. When has anyone ever been able to perpetrate this kind of a conspiracy? Oh, wait, all the time, we just don't hear about it, right?

Advice: when your pet theory is espoused on thousands of websites that regularly use the word "Zionists", you might wanna rethink things.
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last