(PS to ICX - PUNK!
"It's an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration,"
So this is how the blowhard intends to get around the lies in his films.
How about honest journalism? Given his track record with "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine", Moore has the integrity of a weasel.
I suppose I should apologize in advance to all weasels.
It's an op-ed piece eqivalent to Molly Ivins deliberately editing quotes to make them say the opposite of what the speaker actually said.
Michael Moore is a big fat member of the Taliban.
Saddam gives it two severed thumbs up
(PS to ICX - PUNK!
I wonder how many more gallons of ink AP is gonna devote to promoting this loser's movie...
Call me crazy, but I love Michael Moore. Really, I love this guy. First off, he is a maker of "documentary" films. These films are supposed to be unbiased and objective by their very nature. Second, Moore is a blatant partisan. He says such outrageous things that he polarizes people. Third, he takes the credibility away from his films by being such a partisan and thus, makes himself a propagandist. Finally, four, I believe by his appearance, arrogance, partisanship, etc. he hurts his cause more than he helps it. Since I don't agree with his cause, I love him from hurting it.
Honestly, F9/11 will play to the exact audience it was targeted to and nobody else. Contrast that to a film like the Passion. Although not a politically motivated film and not a documentary, it is an example of a film appealing to a wide audience, i.e. not just evangelical Christians.
When Lou Dobbs interviewed him and called "Bowling for Columbine" "factually challenged" he then replied that BFC was a "satire".
Then why do you and your buddies in the liberal media keep calling it a "documentary?"
Yes, sieg bloody heil to you too, Herr Goebbels...I mean Mr. Moore.
Regards, Ivan
Yeah, and this AP "article" is an op-ed piece, too. If it wasn't actually written for them by Moore's people.
Mark my words...this film will be a huge box office failure...
The only people who will go and see are the left and right coast left wing nut bags...
What would have happend to a movie maker of the time if he had stated he wanted to get rid of FDR over say Omaha Beach, Anzio, Tarawa or even Pearl Harbor ?
Wait a minute. I thought Hollywood was calling it a "documentary".
Here's a face that could sink a thousand ships.
Everyone who wants to see it would never have voted for the President under any circumstances.
The film will change absolutely no one's mind.
It is simply another product Moore is marketing to his fan base. It will be very profitable - he made Bowling for Columbine for $4M and it took in $21M at the box office.
He made Fahrenheit 9/11 for $6M. Assuming that there are about 3-4 million broken glass Bush haters in the US who have $10 to spend he could clear almost $35M on this film.
Quite simply, Michael Moore has found a way to profit by blatantly exploiting the 9/11 atrocity without any serious mainstream criticism.
Doesn't he realize that after the next 9/11 he will top the list ?
The First Amendment doesn't protect traitors.
BUMP