Thanks to Lori at Downtown Chick Chat, CNN exposes the weblog at Moorewatch for providing a link to download Michael Moore’s treasonous sack of lies for FREE on the internet. It’s FREE! Download it all you want, give it to your friends.
Why is this ok? Because Michael Moore said it was. Here’s the video, here’s the transcript:
Well, I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people. As long they’re not doing it to make a profit off it, as long as they’re not, you know, trying to make a profit off my labor. I would oppose that. But um, you know I do quite well and I um…I don’t know, I make these books and movies and TV shows because I want things to change, so the more people that get to see them the better, and um, so I’m, I’m happy when that happens, OK? Should I not be happy I don’t know? It’s like if a friend of yours has the DVD of my movie, gave it to you to watch one night, is that person doing something wrong? I’m not seeing any money from that. But he’s just handing the DVD to you so that you can watch my movie. A DVD that he bought, but you’re not buying it, yet you’re watching it without paying me any money. See I think that’s OK, and it’s always been OK, we share things with people. And I think information and art, ideas should be shared.
Chasing the Wind 
25 responses to “Download Moore's F***911 Movie for Free”
thank you
LikeLike
Thank you Mike
LikeLike
I guess there isnt much to say expet that Micheal Moore is the closet we get to Man that atleast trying to do some good in the name of love not in the name of destruction. Real Power is to save lifes, not Sending kids to death nor killing civilians and spreading fear, thats not power, thats fear of LOVE.
LikeLike
You think Michael Moore is spreading love?
Mmmm…. feel the love.
LikeLike
These seem fair enough comments on the general will or rather lack of it
You say angry things to those you love best
LikeLike
*I* don’t say hateful things to people I love, at least not intentionally. If that’s your idea of love, it’s an odd one.
And there’s no way you can convince me Michael Moore only says those things because he loves America. He borders on the treasonous; his movie is a sack of lies. Interspersing pictures of dead Iraqi children with American soldiers laughing, as Moore does in his movie, is just sick.
I didn’t even touch the second and third point of that inept “Yo Fisher” comment, but here is is:
– “Real Power is to save lifes”. In that case, the “Real Power” must belong to the USA. Saddam butchered 1.2 million Iraqis during his rule, and Bush had the courage to lead America to stop that.
– “not Sending kids to death”. I can only assume “Yo Fisher” is referring to soldiers. What exactly does he think the military does? Is it a playschool, recess for wayward children? These “kids” are proud to bring freedom to Iraq. How do I know? Because I read what they write. Anybody can – the links are on the side of my blog. Pick a few and read them – they’re full of military people, Iraqi civilians, and military wives that are proud of our American servicemen.
LikeLike
Watching it as a download NOW would be great. I live in NYC and every time I go to the theater, I cannot get in, because of the lines. I promise if I can download it now and watch it, I will go after the 1st wave of enthusiasm is less (probably in November), and pay full price.
LikeLike
Heh. Michael Moore says you can download it and watch it free. His distributor’s lawyers are of a different opinion. 😛
LikeLike
THANK GOD!
LikeLike
i was going to buy a ticket to spiderman and then sneek into f911. now i can watch it for free while exploiting all that “property is theft” nonsence.
RADICAL!
LikeLike
The original Moorwatch site now has links and instructions for downloading F*** 911 for free. Get the details here: http://67.19.19.67/index.php/weblog/steal_this_movie/
LikeLike
The funniest thing about this, is that the republicans who are promoting this movie download are doing Mike a favour. Mike Moore really doesnt need the money but wants people to see this movie. Mike, the distributors and all involved have already made their money back several times over, so yes, download the film and remember its content at voting time. I downloaded it and watched it, and i’ll be going to the cinema when it comes on round here too !
LikeLike
Mike, you say the movie is full of lies…name one. If you can’t, then you are the liar. And your comment proves that you hold no love in your heart.
Originally posted under the name “To Michael, you do not love anyone” but Michael didn’t appreciate the insult and so he edited it.
LikeLike
Michael, thanks for helping to promote Michael Moore’s new film. You are doing us all a tremendous favor. I think the reason why you have such a problem with some of his comments (such as “(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet … in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pr*cks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.â€) is that you are one of the most ignorant people in America. Most likely you are a white middle-class kid from the suburbs with nothing better to do in life than sit on a computer and spread hate. Do you know anything about history? Do you know what the founders of America said about democracy, freedom, and liberty? I don’t think so, because if you did then you would know that Michael Moore is a true patriot, a person that Americans can be proud of. You can drink pepsi, shop at Old Navy, drive your SUV, watch Fox “News” and listen to Linkin Park all you like and not have to worry how much damage you are causing to the millions of people around the world that you pretend to love. If I am wrong in any of these assertions, please let me know. Prove how you have centered your life on the love of freedom and human rights. Prove that you are dedicated to the cause ending suffering and ignorance. Are you willing to die for your beliefs? If not, than your life probably isn’t worth living.
LikeLike
To “To Michael, you do not love anyone,” (wonderful name there, bud):
I have pointed out Moore’s lies as far back as here. There’s a couple listed earlier in this very thread.
Liberal columnist Christopher Hitchens at the Slate exposes a lot of the lies at “Unfairenheit 9/11.” These lies are not only documented by right-wing journalists, they’re documented by left wing journalists. There’s a whole pile of lies there pointed out by the left; read them. Nobody believes the bin Laden family is profiting through George Bush’s action via the Carlyle group. He made that up.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with the 2nd half, “I have no love in my heart,” or how you can reach that conclusion based on whther Michael Moore lies or not. Jesus commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves; it’s his second greatest commandment. It’s something I strive for daily. Do you? You’re on some stranger’s blog accusing him of being a liar and being unloving.
——-
As for “the truth,” your statements are just bizzare. You’ve obviously spent a lot of energy insulting me, and you don’t know a thing about me. I don’t shop at old Navy, drive an SUV, listen to Linkin Park, and I’m not a kid. Even if I did, it sounds like you would hate me because of those things. I consider Michael Moore treasonous, not a patriot, for the very reasons you’re trying to label me. I love America, I love the new freedom of the Iraqi people.
Future insults will be deleted at my discretion. Be nice. I’m paying $4.95 a month for this. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m not going to insult you, don’t worry; I just think you’re being misleading. Not liking Moore is one thing — your prerogative, obviously, and heck, I know people on the left who don’t like the guy — but your arguments about the “lies” don’t hold water. Moore’s not the only person who believes the bin Laden family profits from the Carlyle Group investments they’ve held; I’ve seen a handful of books and several news articles on the subject. In fact, the assertion that they didn’t profit is nuts; how could they not profit? That is, after all, the point of investing. I think it’s unfair to claim there’s some kind of evil agenda behind it, but the bin Ladens did indeed have a large chunk of change tied up in an enterprise that involved Bush Sr., Baker, and a number of other ex-politicos. As the movie states, it’s all about money.
Second, Hitchens has an axe to grind, being a pro-war “leftist” (he’d probably disagree with your characterization of his politics as “liberal,” by the way) and just grumpy in general, and most of his essay is devoted (in typical Hitchens fashion) to dissecting not what Moore said but the way in which he said it. Don’t bother looking for refutations of the facts there — the article’s overall message can be summed up as “he’s just wrong, although I can’t say why, and Saddam was a really, really bad guy, anyway, so Michael Moore should shut up.” Eric Alterman does a nice job of deflating Hitchens’ windbag self here:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=106595
(Yes, I know it’s a “liberal” site, but I promise that you won’t immediately turn into a Democrat against your will just by going there. Honest.)
Now, as for your “pointing out Moore’s lies”, what exactly did you point out? A. You hadn’t seen the movie when you wrote that post, since it wasn’t released yet. B. There isn’t a thing wrong with saying Bush ignored warnings of terror and then also flubbed the response; that’s exactly what a lot of former government folks are saying he did. C. Clinton did have a plan to stop terror, and it was working, until Ashcroft decided it wasn’t that big of a priority. And no urgency? That’s not what the FBI or the 9/11 Commission have been saying. D. Yes, Bush has been fanning fear in America, and it has nothing to do with “fighting terror”; again, remember Clinton? I don’t recall people being afraid to leave their homes when the U.S.S. Cole bombing occurred. There are ways to fight terror without scaring people. Isn’t that, in the end, the general idea: to not let the bad guys scare us? I’d also like to point out that all but the shoe-bomber (who was an honest-to-God nutjob) happened after we invaded Iraq. How’s that for making the world safer?
And finally, E. yes, it’s good that Saddam’s gone, and I doubt you’d find anybody on the left who’d disagree with that. That said, it’s the way in which we got him gone that’s the problem, at least to me; we managed to do just about everything wrong, from the word “go” forward. Are the Iraqi children better off? Heck, I don’t know, and I doubt anybody will until a few years from now, when things have (hopefully) settled down under whatever new government arises in Iraq. I’m withholding judgment on that one and just hoping people quit killing other people over there. It’s great that you helped those guys get new limbs; I applaud you for that. I myself have been trying to get relief to both the soldiers and the Iraqi civilians who were injured in our “shock and awe” attacks. And as Abu Ghraib demonstrated, I think Iraqi kids are still going to be afraid of torture rooms for quite some time.
Last but not least, there’s not a darn thing “treasonous” about talking, writing, or making a movie, even if you disagree with it. I can’t stand Ann Coulter, but she’s not a traitor. I disagreed with Tom DeLay when he fought Clinton over going into Kosovo, but that didn’t make him an enemy of the state (I also supported going into Afghanistan, although I was appalled that we didn’t keep our focus long enough to stabilize the country). And yet, somehow, Michael Moore’s guilty of “treason”? Why, because he criticizes Bush? In the words of Teddy Roosevelt, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” The President’s a public servant; he’s not God, and he’s not above criticism. We are, in effect, his bosses. If I don’t like what one of my employees is doing, does that mean that I can’t tell them what I think? Hardly. Dissent and opinion (which is what the movie is, despite all the blather about fact-checking) is as American as the flag, Mom, and apple pie.
There you go. Long-winded, yeah, but hopefully not insulting.
LikeLike
does anybody want to explain to this addled brain why she cant download the video – another link – direct perhaps?
LikeLike
Jeremy –
You left off the part I think is a lie – that *Bush* is somehow profiting or has some sort of stake in the Carlyle group profiting. There’s no link, wholly fictitious.
I started into the article you linked, but by the time it gets to “Duped into supporting an unnecessary war by a dishonest leadership, upon whom does he focus his fury?” he’s lost his objectivity. The Democrats also thought Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorists and had weapons of mass destruction until Bush became President. Trashing Hitchens doesn’t do a thing for me; I only linked to him because he’s considered by many to be leftist and also doesn’t care for the Moore lies. If you want to trash a leftist, help yourself; I don’t really know him. As for A) I read what Moore said about the movie, B) I don’t think Bush “flubbed” anything, I think he’s been very effective, C) Richard Clark said (at one point) that Bush took Clinton’s plan and was trying to make it more effective when 9/11 hit; Ashcroft wasn’t yet in the picture as Homeland Security was created later. D) The USS Cole wasn’t located in downtown New York. Under Clinton’s watch, the failed underground World Trade Center bombing was the only domestic terror Americans had seen on their own soil. E) You can talk to the Iraqi’s, if you’d like – check Iraq the Model and Iraq at a Glance, written by Iraqis. The links are on the left. They believe they’re better off.
I don’t describe the making of the movie as treasonous; he has every right to do that. To pass it off as a objective documentary filled with fictitious statements about Bush *is* treasonous if you consider is to be a betrayal of one’s country by purposely actigin to aid it’s enemies, something I think Moore’s doing under the guise of free speech. If he labeled it “Leftist Propoganda” I’d have no quarrel with it. He doesn’t though, he tries to pretend it’s truth.
I also don’t have any problem criticizing the President. I criticized Clinton plenty. I criticized Nixon’s lies, Carter’s ineffectiveness, and the first Bush’s flip flop on taxes. I criticize *this* President on his approval of excessive spending. I did *not* criticize Clinton’s security decisions while we were in Kosovo at the time, though I wondered why we picked that battle later. Criticizing a President, the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, in the middle of a war demoralizes the troops. The time for criticism was *before* Congress authorized it, or *after* the war is over when everybody’s writing books. Not during the war. That’s what ticks me off – the only thing criticism will accomplish at this stage is giving encouragement to the terrorists.
I appreciate your opinion. I don’t agree with much of it, but I appreciate you presenting it in the polite manner in which you did. If you can talk those previous two posters into presenting their opinion without calling me ignorant or hateful, I’d appreciate it. I suspect you won’t have any luck with them either.
Welcome to my little blog. 🙂
LikeLike
I can’t stand it. I dislike the name “To Michael you do not love anyone” that one poster chose. His link was to “lowbudgets.com” so I’ve changed his name to that so that I don’t feel insulted on my own blog.
LikeLike
dulcinea – the only details I know of are in Post #11. They lead you to a website that might be able to help.
LikeLike
You still have not mentioned a single lie. Not one lie. The comment you made about the movie being filled with lies, is, in fact, a lie. Mention one lie, that you can prove as being a lie. Not something that you took from Hitchens or Isikoff. Name one lie!
LikeLike
I’ll say it for the 3rd time in this thread alone, then I’ll just have to assume you have an anger-induced reading comprehension problem. Bush did not profit personally in any way from the Iraq war, neither through ties to the bin Laden family nor through the Carlyle Group. Moore made all that up.
If you’re going to hang on such tenuous threads, then the fact that the Carlyle group is a significant stockholder in the film distribution company that Moore’s using for F*** 911 should cause you concern. That’s not some tenuous thread that occured 10 years ago in passing, that relationship is going on right now.
LikeLike
Hey, Michael — a bit of a late response, with the 4th and all, but ah, well… For the Carlyle-Bush link, I don’t remember Moore ever saying that this President Bush is linked to the Carlyle Group, but that the bin Ladens are (were, actually) and that the Bush family as a whole is. Sure, there’s the implication that the Bushes stick together, but I don’t think that’s a real stretch, myself. The Bush family’s known for their clannishness, I’d say, and what family doesn’t look out for one another?
As for me trashing Hitchens, he’s not a “leftist” (he calls himself a “contrarian”), but goes more his own way, whether he’s slamming Bill Clinton, Mother Teresa, or Henry Kissinger. He’s apparently pretty much a libertarian these days, which means he’s to the right of me and you. At any rate, I only gave the link to Alterman’s piece because Alterman points out what I myself took away from Hitchens article, which is that Hitchens ain’t a real credible critic himself, and he doesn’t get beyond vaguely bemoaning Moore’s opinions. Citing his piece as a source for “refutation” of F911‘s facts isn’t going to get you much. Moving on, did the Democrats want to go after Saddam? Yes, and no. From what I remember of the debates back during Clinton’s term, the majority wanted Saddam gone, but they thought that the sanctions were the way to go. Dictators don’t live forever, after all, and the man was almost certainly defanged, even if you believed he still had some of his weaponry. If you don’t think Bush duped Congress into going to war, that’s your prerogative, and I actually tend to agree — personally, I think the media duped Congress into going to war, by framing it as an “anybody who votes against this is committing political suicide!” issue.
Now for the A-B-C-D-E bit. For A., that’s fine that you were referring to what Moore said beforehand, but that’s a little different than addressing the “lies” in his movie (to me, at least). B. Bush’s flubbing of the response to 9/11 is somewhat subjective, I’ll grant, but I think that leaving Afghanistan as a floundering almost-state riddled with corruption while letting the bad guy (bin Laden) get away qualifies. Seeing as Iraq had nada to do with 9/11, I see the invasion as a major distraction, not a step towards beating al Qaeda.
C. I don’t know which statement of Clarke’s you’re referring to, but I’ve read his book, and when it comes to the Bush administration vs. the Clinton administration, it’s pretty damning. Maybe they were trying to adapt the plan when 9/11 struck, but according to him they left al Qaeda on the back burner for far too long beforehand. Ashcroft most certainly was in the picture, as head of the DoJ — he told the FBI what to focus on, and terror wasn’t high on his list. Tom Ridge is the Homeland Security guy, not Ashcroft (and Clarke actually said some nice things about Ridge, as I recall, mostly that his hands were tied by the complexities of his newly-created mishmash of a Department).
D. Okay, so the first WTC bombing was the first attack on U.S. soil, but that’s an even better example — shouldn’t Americans have been terrified to leave their homes after that? I know I certainly wasn’t, and neither were my relatives on Staten Island, although they were definitely shocked at what had happened. And what about the Oklahoma City bombing? Wasn’t that cause to be terrified? My point is that the Bush administration uses fear as a prod, when what we really need is an FDR “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” speech. I’ll admit that Bush’s “the world hears you” speech after the 9/11 attacks was very moving, and made me think that things would be okay, but he’s managed to sabotage any goodwill I had towards him since then. Again, isn’t not being scared the general idea? If the terrorists cause terror among us here at home, doesn’t that mean they win?
E. Like I said before, I suspect that we won’t know whether or not Iraq’s better off now for quite some time, and it doesn’t do much good to quibble, either way. There’re Iraqis who think it is, yep, but I’ve also read quite a bit from Iraqis who think it ain’t.
As for the “treason” on Moore’s part: I think people are getting confused as to what a documentary actually is. Documentaries aren’t objective; they’re skewed, by their very nature, to present the viewpoint of the director/filmmaker. They’re generally meant to make a point. Seriously — what documentaries out there are really, truly objective? I’m no expert on insects, but I’d be willing to bet that even that bugs documentary from a few years back (can’t recall the name, sorry) didn’t present all the views of all of the insect-studying community. Moore’s been very up-front, I think, about the fact that this is his own opinion, albeit bolstered by facts. I’ve seen several interviews with the man lately, and he’s never tried to “pass it off” as a completely objective movie. It ain’t.
That said, I also don’t think Moore’s aiding our enemies. I think the absolute worst thing for our enemies would’ve been if we’d stayed focused on Afghanistan and left Iraq alone, which is something Moore’s argued for. Regardless of how you feel about the Iraq-al Qaeda link, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody claim that bin Laden was hiding in Iraq. The war in Iraq aids our enemies, the people who’ve actually hit us, not Michael Moore. Beyond that, though, free speech itself isn’t treasonous, no matter what you think of its possible repercussions. If I came out tomorrow with a movie that showed Martians allying themselves with Bush to take over the planet and claimed it was real, even something so absolutely un-factual wouldn’t be treasonous. Slanderous, possibly, but not treasonous — if Bush wants to take Moore to court, hey, that’s his right. There’s a reason the Sedition Act was allowed to expire in the early 1800s.
Lastly, while I appreciate that you didn’t want to criticize Clinton while Kosovo was going on, I think that criticism of the President can’t be limited by a war’s duration. If that were the case, the President would just have to declare that the war’s still going on, and nobody would dare criticize him, right? Welcome to 1984. (Heck, isn’t the war in Iraq technically supposed to be over? I thought it was now an occupation/peacekeeping mission, not a war.) Criticism of the President is the right of every citizen, whether we’re involved in a war in Vietnam, Germany, Mexico, Bosnia, or Iraq.
If we can’t criticize a President while a war’s going on, how can we stop even greater mistakes from happening? You said that you wondered about Clinton’s decision on Kosovo after it was over; what would you have done if you somehow found out something horrible about the bombing we were doing during the war, rather than after? Would you have spoken up, or just let it go and nailed him for it after the damage was already done? You also said that you criticized Nixon’s lies; I’m glad to hear it, but by your own standards, you couldn’t have done so between ’69 and ’73, when we pulled out of Vietnam, right? (By the way, the Teddy Roosevelt quote I mentioned above was from 1918, while his opponent in the 1912 elections, Woodrow Wilson, was in the White House and WWI was in full swing.)
Believe it or not, I’m an Army brat. I was living in Killeen, Texas (home of Fort Hood, the biggest freakin’ military installation in the hemisphere), while the first Gulf War was going on, and I thought at that time that the best thing everybody could do was keep their criticisms to themselves, too, for the sake of morale. (Of course, that was easier on me than on some, since I wanted to see Saddam kicked out of Kuwait.) Over the last several years, though, I’ve had to turn away from that. I think that, in some cases, the best thing that can be done for the troops is to ask hard questions about what the heck they’re doing over there, and I can’t see how that could possibly be treason.
Of course, this is all my view of things; thanks for the polite response. Sorry — I don’t have much sway over the rest of the posters here, as I’m new, myself. ;^>
LikeLike
I’m not going to address all of it; it’s an old thread. The Richard Clarke statement I’m talking about is here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
Part of Moore’s assertion in the movie is his “proof” the Bush’s are involved with the bin Laden family is that the bin Ladens were smuggled out of the US after 9/11 under Bush’s orders. However, Richard Clarke took responsibility for that and absolved the Bush’s of any involvement.
As for the Iraqis, I’m certain 1.2 million of them at a minimum would say Iraq was better off, but Saddam killed them during his reign.
I can’t sign up for your belief that one should criticize the President on his wartime footing. Before and after, but not during. That goes for Vietnam, too. In fact, I believe the reason were wer not successful in Vietnam was *because* of the criticism.
Too bad about not having sway over the other posters. I had to delete some outright insults yesterday.
LikeLike
I’m just gonna delete those comments that are insulting. Y’all be nice, y’hear?
LikeLike