Roger Ebert: ‘Bush has been a Disaster for America’

I gotta hand it to Roger Ebert, he reviews Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 and slams it due to the blatant inaccuracies caresses it gently like a soft kitten because he is aware of Moore’s integrity and adherence to the truth. Speaking of Moore’s earlier film — Bowling for Columbine — Eber said “some of his ‘facts’ were wrong, false or fudged”, he goes on to agree with Moore’s politics, but can’t get past the part where Moore is prevaricating in order to push his agenda. “But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.” But he sums it up nicely saying that he agrees that there are some things that are wrong and “I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America.”

It would have been nice if Moore hadn’t let his hatred blind him, and unfortunately he is quickly becoming the liberal counter-part of the vitriol spewing pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. These are men who are willing to lie in order to push their agenda, and none of them can be trusted, I wish people would wake up to the truth of it.

‘9/11’: Just the facts? [Chicago Sun-Times]

Stephen VanDyke

I've published HoT along with about 300+ friends since 2002. We're all Americans who are snarky and love our country. I'm a libertarian that registered Republican because I like to win elections. That's pretty much it.

  1. Stephen,

    I just want to point out that Ebert DOES NOT say that the 9/11 film is inaccurate or factually incorrect. The quote you mention is referring to problems Ebert had with the Columbine movie. In fact, Ebert is quoted as saying: “Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven’t heard of any major inaccuracies.”

    In any case, it may be prudent to revise your original post to clarify this.


  2. Thanks for that, I’ve edited that to make it more clear. I need to practice my reading comprehension :).

  3. Stephen, the opening line is still blatantly inaccurate. Which is pretty ironic given that you are attacking someone else for hypothetically being inaccurate… As for Moore, you see to be judging pretty quick, maybe it’s be best to see the move first before attacking?

  4. Better? My beef is not with the movie per se, it’s with Moore’s shrill way of disregarding any facts that get in his way when he’s trying to bash the right. Granted, I like bashing on the right too, but to stoop to the level that you leave things out that would hurt your case is just wrong. I’ll provide facts to back up what I’m saying if you want them.

  5. I’m well aware of some of Moore’s distortions in the past, but I’m reserving judgement on F9/11 until I see it… I’ve yet to see any serious claims of inaccuracies yet. I’m sure one or two will pop up, but the real question is whether they are malicious, or just the inevitable accidental errors.

    I think there is a touch of validity to the Hannity/Limbaugh comparison, but Moore still plays a lot more with facts. He makes documentaries, does research, structures things in a way that entertains, makes his point and sometimes distorts. Do the Hannity/Limbaugh do any research at all, or do they just eat the talking points?

    Of course my take on it all is that having rabid lying frontmen firing up the base on both the left and the right is part of the game. You just factor it in the way the stock market factors in future rate hikes.