Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 2004 documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11, generated substantial controversy and criticism after its release shortly before the U.S. presidential election, 2004. The film by Michael Moore accused the Bush administration of using the September 11, 2001 attacks to raise support for the War in Iraq.

Contents 1 Release controversy 2 Ray Bradbury's title dispute 3 Attacks on the film 3.1 Move America Forward's letter-writing campaign 3.2 Citizens United's FEC challenge 4 Controversy about the film's content 4.1 U.S. presidential election, 2000 4.2 Interview With Mark Kennedy 4.3 Bush reading to school children 4.4 Saudi flights 4.4.1 Richard Clarke's various statements regarding the approval of the flights 4.4.2 The FBI's denial that it had a role in approving the flights 4.4.3 Statements by Commission members regarding the flights 4.4.4 Alleged lack of cooperation from the White House over Saudi flights investigation 4.4.5 Moore's claim about inadequate interviewing of bin Laden relatives 4.5 Taliban visit 4.6 War in Iraq 4.7 Bush, Unocal, and the war in Afghanistan 4.8 Secret Service guarding Saudi embassy 4.9 Saddam Hussein murdering US citizens 4.10 Peter Damon scene 4.11 Cuts to Soldiers' Pay 4.12 Coalition of the Willing 4.13 Marine recruiters 5 References 6 See also 7 External links

[edit] Release controversy

Originally planned for distribution by Mel Gibson's Icon Productions, Fahrenheit 9/11 was later picked up by Miramax after Icon released claims to the movie in May 2003, citing image conflicts while claiming the decision to be apolitical. Miramax had earlier distributed another film for Moore, The Big One, in 1997.

In May 2004, Moore announced that Disney (the parent company of Miramax) was blocking the distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11 in North America, citing a contractual clause expressly permitting it to do so in such cases as a prohibitive budget or explicit movie rating. However, Miramax executives indicated this was not the case. Disney stated that both Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, and Miramax were advised in May 2003 that Miramax would not be permitted to distribute the film. Disney representatives claim that Disney has the right to veto any Miramax film if it appears that their distribution would be counterproductive to the interests of the company.

An unnamed Disney executive said that the film was against Disney's interests not because of government business dealings, but because releasing it would risk being "dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle" and alienating customers. Emanuel stated that Disney chief executive Michael Eisner requested he back out of the Miramax deal, expressing concerns about political fallout from conservative politicians, especially regarding tax breaks given to Disney properties in Florida (e.g., Walt Disney World), where Jeb Bush is governor. Disney also has financial ties to members of the Saudi royal family, who were represented unfavorably in the film. Moore admitted later in a CNN interview that Disney had told him they did not want the film a year earlier, however, he had been advised by representatives that Miramax would continue to fund filming. Seemingly in approval, Disney continued to fund Fahrenheit 9/11 via Miramax throughout the remaining year of production.

Due to these difficulties, distribution for the film was first secured in numerous countries outside the U.S. On May 28, 2004, after more than a week of talks, Disney announced that Miramax film studio founders Harvey and Bob Weinstein had personally acquired the rights to the documentary from Walt Disney Co., after Disney declined to distribute it.

One month later, the major rights to the film reverted completely to Lions Gate Films, which in partnership with the Weinstein's newly-formed company Fellowship Adventure Group (which handled its home video distribution via Columbia/Tri-Star Home Entertainment) and IFC Films acquired the film for domestic theatrical distribution, beating out other studios such as Fox Searchlight and United Artists. Furthermore, a settlement was reached so that any profits from the film's distribution that went to Miramax or Disney would be donated to charity. The Weinsteins repaid their parent company for all costs of the film to that point, estimated at around $6 million. They also agreed to be responsible for all costs to finish the film and all marketing costs not paid by any third-party film distributors. Moore called the deal a "fair and equitable solution" and added that he was "grateful to them now that everyone who wants to see it will now have the chance to do so."

After being informed that the film had been rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America, Moore appealed the decision, hoping to obtain a PG-13 rating for the movie instead (the R rating requires anyone under the age of 17 to be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian, otherwise they will not be admitted). Moore's lawyer, former Governor of New York Mario Cuomo, was not allowed to attend the hearing. The appeal was denied on June 22, 2004, and Gov. Cuomo contended that it was because he had been banned from the hearing. Some theaters chose to defy the MPAA and allow unchaperoned teenagers to attend screenings. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office For Film And Broadcasting gave the film an A-III rating, meaning that it was, in their judgment, "morally unobjectionable for adults" (this is the mildest rating typically given by the organization to motion pictures that are rated R by the MPAA). Moore commented that he was willing to "sneak anyone in."

The film was released domestically in June of 2004, thus the U.S. still became the first country to see the film's actual theatrical release, despite the fact that the arrangements for international distribution were finalized earlier. On October 5, 2004, when the film was released to home video, the theatrical distribution rights reverted back to the Fellowship Adventure Group, although Lions Gate still holds the copyright under a dummy company pseudonym (as they have done for their other in-house productions). Lions Gate also owns the television rights (due to their cable output deal with the Showtime network).

[edit] Ray Bradbury's title dispute

The title of the film refers to Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 and the September 11 attacks of 2001. The Fahrenheit 451 reference is emphasized by the film's tagline "The temperature where freedom burns" (compare with Fahrenheit 451's tagline, "The temperature at which books burn"). Moore has stated that the title came from the subject of an e-mail he received shortly after September 11th.

Ray Bradbury was upset by what he considered the appropriation of his title. He reportedly is demanding an apology from Moore and wants the film renamed.^[1] Moore called Bradbury two weeks before the film's release in 2004 to apologize, saying that the film's marketing was set in motion a long time ago, and it was too late to change the title. Since Bradbury has not trademarked the title, legal action is unlikely.

[edit] Attacks on the film

[edit] Move America Forward's letter-writing campaign

The group Move America Forward, which has ties to Sacramento, California PR firm Russo, Marsh and Rogers, the campaign to prevent CBS from showing The Reagans, and the campaign to unseat California Governor Gray Davis, mounted a letter-writing campaign to ask theaters not to show the film, which it compared to "an al-Qaeda training video."^[2] "We've been causing them [the cinemas] an enormous amount of aggravation." said talk radio host Melanie Morgan.^[3] However, no theaters reported cancelling their showings.

[edit] Citizens United's FEC challenge

Citizens United, a group run by David Bossie, a critic of Bill Clinton, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission charging that ads for the film constitute political advertising and thus may not be aired 60 days before an election or 30 days before a party convention. On August 5, the FEC unanimously dismissed the complaint finding no evidence that the movie's ads had broken the law.

[edit] Controversy about the film's content

The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words. You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements.

Some critics contend that Fahrenheit 9/11 contains distortions and untruth. Some say that the movie is propaganda. In response, Moore has published both an extensive list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document establishing agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the 9/11 Commission (the independent, bipartisan panel directed by Congress and President Bush to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks).^[4]

[edit] U.S. presidential election, 2000

The introduction to the movie includes a collage of video footage depicting the events surrounding the U.S. 2000 presidential election, particularly those involving the contested Florida recount. This fragment of the movie is presented to convey the illegitimacy of Bush as a president. It includes a newspaper headline reporting that Gore actually received more votes in Florida than Bush did and a quote by Michael Moore expressing his opinion that Gore would have won if the Supreme Court had not interfered with the recount process. However, there are differing views of what would have happened had a recount occurred. The movie shows a clip of CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin stating that "if there was a state-wide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election." A comprehensive six-month study commissioned by a consortium of media organizations including CNN,^[5] The New York Times, and the Washington Post concluded that Gore would have won if there had been a statewide recount that included disputed, machine-uncountable ballots. The study also concluded that Bush would have won the election under the recount system in place at the time the US Supreme Court intervened to halt the recount, and that Bush would have won under a partial-recount scheme suggested by Gore. For more information, refer to the Florida Ballot Project recounts.

[edit] Interview With Mark Kennedy

At one point in the documentary, Moore addresses Republican Minnesota Congressman Mark Kennedy. The film plays as such:

Congressman Kennedy: How are you doing?

Moore: I'm trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the army and go over to Iraq. Is there any way you could help me with that?

Congressman Kennedy: How would I help you?

Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.

Critics say that this scene was meant to create the image that the members of Congress are unconcerned about American soldiers in Iraq, suggesting that those in power believe it to be too dangerous for their family to be involved. By ending it that way, he implies that Kennedy would not, in fact, pass it out. However, there were more lines in the interview.^[6]

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

MM: Because there is only one member who has a kid over there in Iraq. This is Corporal Henderson, he is helping me out here.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How are you, good to see you.

MM: There it is, it's just a basic recruitment thing. Encourage especially those who were in favor of the war to send their kids. I appreciate it.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: Okay, bye.

[edit] Bush reading to school children

Early on in the film Moore explains, that President Bush continued reading 'My Pet Goat' to a classroom of children for an extended period of time after being told of the attacks. The book is actually titled Reading Mastery 2, with an exercise titled 'The Pet Goat'.

The school's principal, Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, explained, "I don’t think anyone could have handled it better. What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?" This point, however, has been widely mocked as a straw man argument. Many figures and pundits, including personality Bill Maher, have claimed that he simply could have excused himself and calmly left without creating a stir.

According to conservative newspaper Washington Times, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was holding up a legal pad upon which he had written a message telling Bush not to do anything yet.^[7]

[edit] Saudi flights

Moore implicates the Bush administration in allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States without being thoroughly interviewed by the FBI. In his narration in the movie, Moore states that "At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th." While private flights were still generally banned at this time, the movie does not mention that the ban on commercial flights was partially lifted on September 13. Moore has based this on a book by Craig Unger called House of Bush, House of Saud. Passenger lists can be found at the House of Bush website.^[8]

[edit] Richard Clarke's various statements regarding the approval of the flights

Critics point to various statements and testimony by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, which they contend indicates that Clarke had the initial responsibility which he then passed off to Dale Watson, who was the agent in charge of investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks at the FBI.

However, Clarke's statements about the flights and how they were approved have varied over time. The following is a chronological summary:

• September 3, 2003: In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Clarke said: "It is true that members of the bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House."

• March 24, 2004:^[9] In testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Clarke indicated that the request was not abnormal, "The Saudi embassy, therefore, asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans." He goes on to explain that the FBI eventually approved the flights and he describes conversations in which the FBI has said that there was no one who left on those flights who the FBI now wants to interview.

However, under questioning by Commission member Tim Roemer, Clarke appeared to suggest that the White House may have had a role in originating the request for approval: "I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. The two — since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know."

• May 25, 2004: In an interview with The Hill newspaper, published the following day,^[10] Clarke said "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again." He went on to say that "It didn’t get any higher than me... On 9–11, 9–12 and 9–13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI."

Critics of Moore have, on the basis of Clarke's statements about the flights, attacked the fact that Moore does not mention Clarke's testimony or the FBI's role in the approval of the flights. Moore's supporters contend that Clarke's statements on the matter have been inconsistent, and point to his statement in March that the "request for approval" may have originated in the White House and may have been an executive decision passed down for approval by inferiors.

Since leaving his White House position, Clarke has become a prominent critic of the Bush administration's war on terrorism and the movie includes footage of many of Clarke's statements.

[edit] The FBI's denial that it had a role in approving the flights

On May 18, 2004, Washington newspaper The Hill quoted FBI spokesman on counterterrorism John Iannarelli as denying that the FBI had any "role in facilitating these flights one way or another."^[11]

The FBI's denial of involvement was repeated to The Hill by another spokesperson, Donna Spiser, in the May 26, 2004 article. She is quoted as saying "We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights."^[10] She states that the FBI's involvement was limited to interviewing those people on the flight it thought were of interest: "We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to".

[edit] Statements by Commission members regarding the flights

The May 18 article in The Hill, which was published prior to Clarke's May 25 claim of full responsibility, quoted 9/11 Commission vice-chair Lee Hamilton as saying: "We don't know who authorized [the flights]. We’ve asked that question 50 times."

The May 26 article in The Hill another Commission member, Tim Roemer, as being unconvinced by Clarke's claim of sole responsibility for approving the flights: "It doesn't seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it... I just don't think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper... Clarke sure didn't seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers."^[10]

[edit] Alleged lack of cooperation from the White House over Saudi flights investigation

Allegations concerning the Bush administration's refusal to provide information to the 9/11 Commission about the Saudi flights are disputed. The May 18, 2004 article in The Hill^[11] says that Democratic Commission member Lee Hamilton "disclosed the administration’s refusal to answer questions on the sensitive subject during a recent closed-door meeting with a group of Democratic senators, according to several Democratic sources." However it also says that Republican Commission member John Lehman "said... that he told the senators the White House has been fully cooperative."

[edit] Moore's claim about inadequate interviewing of bin Laden relatives

Moore also claims that the bin Laden relatives were not seriously interviewed by the FBI before being allowed to leave. However, the September 11 Commission has found that 22 of the 26 people on the "bin Laden" flight were interviewed before being allowed to leave the country with many being asked "detailed questions".^[12]

A September 2, 2004 CNN news article^[13] reported that "However, in a recent interview with the AP, bin Laden's estranged sister-in-law said she does not believe that family members have cut him off entirely. Carmen Binladin, who has changed the spelling of her name and lives in Switzerland, said bin Laden is not the only religious brother in the family, and she expects his sisters support him, too. 'They are very close to Osama,' she said."

[edit] Taliban visit

Members of the Taliban are shown visiting Texas during George W. Bush's term as governor. Critics allege that Moore mentions this in order to imply that Bush invited the Taliban. They counter that the Taliban contingent was hosted by oil company Unocal (which maintained a relationship with Halliburton, headed by Dick Cheney at the time), and their visit to the US was authorized by the Clinton administration, which also met with Taliban members^[14] (although the Clinton administration later imposed economic sanctions against the Taliban^[15]), and that the Bush governorship did not meet with the Taliban during that time. In the United States, state governors have no authority with respect to the hosting of foreigners in their state.

Moore also links the Bush Presidential Administration with the Taliban by reporting that this Administration met with Taliban representatives in the United States in early 2001. The Bush administration contends that its primary goal in these meetings was to encourage the Taliban to extradite Osama bin Laden.

[edit] War in Iraq

The film implies that the invasion of Iraq was an illegitimate attack on a sovereign nation. The film makes a case against components of the Bush Doctrine, specifically against the concepts of pre-emptive war combined with American unilateralism. The film also contends that the focus of the United States should have been directed elsewhere — that the primary aim of United States' military and foreign policy should have continued undistracted on its efforts to find, capture and destroy Al-Qaeda, their leader Osama bin Laden, their close allies and influential sympathizers, rather than attacking, invading and occupying Iraq.

Critics point out that the film does not mention the history of repression, aggression, war crimes under the rule of Saddam Hussein, nor Iraq's reported noncompliance with numerous United Nations resolutions.^[16] On the other hand, Moore has frequently stated his opinion that Hussein was a "bad man" and a tyrant, though this opinion is not mentioned in the film. Moore has stated that noting Saddam's crimes was unnecessary considering that mainstream media have continually pressed this point themselves, making it public knowledge. Many critics and opponents alike consider this issue a red herring due to the fact that, despite the criminal acts committed by Saddam, the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is still a violation of international law, and especially contentious when many perceive greater enemies to be ignored. Moreover, as many other Bush administration critics such as Noam Chomsky note, some of Hussein's greatest atrocities were committed whilst he enjoyed the support of the former conservative US administrations.

Another controversy involved the statement of Marine corporal Abdul Henderson in the film. When asked if he would return to Iraq if ordered, Henderson replied "No." Marine Corps spokesman Patrick Kerr remarked that Henderson could face charges for desertion if he did not report as ordered.^[17]

[edit] Bush, Unocal, and the war in Afghanistan

Moore alleges connections between George W. Bush's decision to begin the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Unocal's desire to build a gas pipeline in the country. Moore asks: "Was the war in Afghanistan really about something else? Perhaps the answer was in Houston, Texas. In 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan bringing natural gas from the Caspian Sea. And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney. Halliburton." Moore goes on to say that "When the invasion of Afghanistan was complete, we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai ... Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former adviser to Unocal."

However, when Bush took office in 2001, Unocal had already withdrawn plans for the proposed pipeline in Afghanistan. Unocal formally withdrew^[18] its support from the project after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998,^[19] reiterated its position in 1999^[20] after several inaccurate media reports, and reiterated its position again in 2002. The United States Energy Information Administration reports that no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline plan.^[21] However, in 2002 Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to revive^[22] plans of a trans-Afghan gas pipeline; Alim Razim, Afghanistan's minister for Mines and Industries, described UNOCAL as the "lead company" in the revived plans, although they continue to deny renewed involvement.

Furthermore, both Unocal and Karzai have denied through spokesmen that they ever had a business relationship of any kind; this claim appears to have originated in the French newspaper Le Monde and resurfaced in the American Christian Science Monitor. The allegations have also been widely repeated in European newspapers, although UNOCAL has consistently denied them.

[edit] Secret Service guarding Saudi embassy

During a scene filmed outside of the Saudi Embassy in which Moore is discussing the level of Saudi investment in the U.S. economy with Craig Unger, they are approached by uniformed Secret Service officer Steve Kimbell. Kimbell explains that he is just ascertaining information, and asks Moore if he is doing a documentary regarding the Saudi Arabian embassy. In voiceover narration, Moore notes that "Even though we were nowhere near the White House, for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were doing standing across the street from the Saudi Embassy." Moore responds to the officer by saying, "I didn't realize the Secret Service guards foreign embassies," to which the officer replies, "Uh, not usually. No, sir." Moore continues in voiceover: "It turns out that Saudi Prince Bandar is perhaps the best protected ambassador in the U.S. The U.S. State Department provides him with a six man security detail."

Critics contend that the movie leaves viewers with an inaccurate impression that the Secret Service plays no role in protecting any other embassy. That statement is not made in the movie, but the critics claim that Officer Kimbell's comment, which is an explicit part of the movie, is wrong and should have been corrected by Moore.

Under Public Law 91-217 section 202, passed in 1970, the uniformed division of the Secret Service plays a role in protecting "foreign diplomatic missions located in the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia" (among other things).^[23][24] However, this does not mean that all embassies receive full-time on-site Secret Service protection (as opposed to area patrols), nor that all the embassies so protected receive the same number of personnel. Neither side has offered a conclusive comparison of the level of security attention given to the different embassies to shed light on Officer Kimbell's statement (that other embassies are "not usually" treated this way) or on Moore's speculation that Prince Bandar might be the best-protected ambassador in the United States.

In addition, Article 22, Section 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, adopted in 1961 and ratified by the United States, reads, "the receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity." If Prince Bandar were indeed to be proven to be the best-protected ambassador in the United States this could be due to a perceived greater threat in post-911 America (hate crimes, assassinations, etc), or alternatively this could (as Moore portrayed it) be indicative of the "Saudi-friendly" nature of the Bush Administration.

[edit] Saddam Hussein murdering US citizens

The scene where Moore states that Saddam Hussein has never murdered US citizens has been criticized because Saddam ordered attacks on pilots enforcing the no-fly zone. Supporters of the film argue that Moore's statement is true in that Iraq had never directly attacked America or its soldiers, and therefore no an illegal murder, but an legitimate act or war or arguably self defence. The US planes shot at over the Iraqi no-fly zones were attacks on warplanes that were flying over Iraqi territory. US casualties from the Gulf War resulted from America attacking Iraq.

[edit] Peter Damon scene

Moore's inclusion of a scene with amputee Peter Damon has been criticized, including by Damon himself, who states that he thinks Moore "should be ashamed of himself" for claiming that soldiers were deceived into supporting the war and for using his injuries as reason to oppose the war. Damon "agree[s] with the President 100%. A lot of the guys down at Walter Reed feel the same way." According to Damon's doctor, Moore took "a very positive thing we're doing for soldiers" who lost limbs and "used it to tell a lie."^[25] Recently Peter Damon has filed a lawsuit amounting to $85 million against Michael Moore, on the basis that it gave a false impression and was defamatory.^[26]

[edit] Cuts to Soldiers' Pay

Michael Moore states, “While Bush was busy taking care of his base and professing his love for our troops, he proposed cutting combat soldiers' pay by 33% and assistance to their families by 60%.”^[27]

What Moore is referring to is two bonus allowances given to deployed soldiers. When he says soldiers’ pay he means Imminent Danger/Hostile Fire Pay, a bonus received by soldiers in designated combat zones. By assistance to their families he means Family Separation Allowance, one of many benefits that soldiers with families get. In reality, no soldier, combat or otherwise, was in danger of having their pay cut by a third, and no family was going to lose 60% of their benefits.

On his website, without citing the original error, Michael Moore actually misquotes himself by adding the word bonus to the line, "…proposed cutting the soldiers’ combat bonus pay 33 percent and assistance to their families by 60 percent."^[28]

[edit] Coalition of the Willing

At one point, Moore reads a list of nations which are members of the Coalition of the Willing. However, he only mentions nations such as Iceland, Morocco and several other minor coalition-partners, often with stereotypical archive footage (monkeys for Morocco, drug users for the Netherlands, etc.), all of which are portrayed to have either a very small or no armed forces, claiming that America would be going it alone when in fact even many of the countries that Moore himself mentioned have highly professional and advanced armed forces. The Netherlands in particular are recognized for having some of the most highly trained soldiers in the world and form an integral part of United Nation peacekeeping forces.

Several other nations, including the above, as well as the United Kingdom, Romania, Australia, and the Republic of Korea all contributed larger numbers of ground troops and resources, although their contributions are significantly outweighed by the American presence.

[edit] Marine recruiters

A scene in the film in which Michael Moore interviewed a recruiting party for the United States Marine Corps at a local mall in Flint, Michigan, was criticized by the Marines themselves and their parent organization. The Marines claimed that they were duped by Moore into taking part in a film they did not endorse, that their methods were portrayed unfairly and that they were quoted out of context during the encounter. ^[29].^[30] Targets of recruitment, however, speak with Moore and affirm his portrayal of their actions and attitudes.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• Fahrenheit 9/11
• Michael Moore
• Fahrenheit 9/11½, a forthcoming sequel
• George W. Bush
• Michael Moore Hates America, a critical documentary
• Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain... Begins to Die, a critical documentary
• FahrenHYPE 9/11, a critical documentary

[edit] External links

• World Socialist Web Site: "Michael Moore's contribution"
• Knight Ridder Newspapers: "A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'". Fact-checking article.
• Salon.com: Michael Moore terrorizes the Bushies!: The right wing is going all out to stop "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- but it's not working.
• MSNBC: Under the Hot Lights: Deconstructing Fahrenheit 9/11 - By Michael Isikoff
  • Moore's rebuttal
  • Framing Michael Moore "What do Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Michael Moore have in common? They have all been subjected to Michael Isikoff's poison pen."
• Moore's Public Service - A favorable op-ed column by Paul Krugman
• Moore Light, Moore heat - "Even before 'Fahrenheit 9/11' opened at theaters, the White House and its right-wing allies tried to smear both the messenger and the message. But the facts support the film."
• Slate: Unfairenheit 9/11. A critical essay by Christopher Hitchens.
  • A point-by-point rebuttal of Hitchens' critical review
  • Rebuttal of Hitchens' review
• Interview with Urban Hamid - Embedded filmmaker who shot some of the Iraqi footage in the film.
• Dave Kopel: Article by Dave Kopel listing 59 alleged deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11
  • Anthony Wade: Article by Anthony Wade rebutting Dave Kopel's list of allegations
  • Anton Sirius: Debunking the 59 Deceits
• MooreWatch: Website critical of Moore's opinions
• MooreLies: Website critical of Moore's opinions
• By Way of Deception - "The political impact that 'Fahrenheit 9/11' may have is one thing; its impact as a film – a work of art – is another. In this case, it is strong on both counts."
• Bowling For Truth - Updated to include criticism of statements in Fahrenheit 9/11
• Fahrenheit 9/11: Firing Up the Choir - "The media critiques of Michael Moore's latest effort miss the main point of the movie: It's not about converting the agnostics but energizing the flock."
• The Wrong Way to Fix the Vote and Botched Name Purge Denied Some the Right to Vote - articles from the Washington Post about the purge of voters in the 2000 Florida election
• What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire - a left-wing critique of the film by scholar/activist Robert Jensen
• "What's Wrong with Fahrenheit 9/11?" - a conservative critique of the fim and its impact by Joey Tartakovsky.
• Michael Moore Lies & Distortions Documented - A list of articles collected on Rush Limbaugh's website
• Propaganda Tactics & Fahrenheit 9/11 - a 14,000-word propaganda analysis by Dr. Kelton Rhoads. The article explores the use of the following influence tactics: Omissions, Contextualization, Ingroup/Outgroup Manipulations, Cynicism, Traps, Manipulating Cause & Effect, Modeling the Convert Communicator, Pacing and Distraction, Associations, Numeric Deceptions, and "Shutting Down the Opposition".
• Backdraft 9/11 (Draft) - Analysis of possible influence backlash the movie may have had on the 2004 election, by Dr. Kelton Rhoads
• Spinsanity: "Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn" - A non-polemic fact checking article by Brendan Nyhan.