Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy

The 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.

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 11.

Ray Bradbury was upset by what he considered the appropriation of his title. He reportedly asked for an apology from Moore and wanted the film renamed. [cite web|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5324876/|title="Fahrenheit 451" author wants title back|work=Hardball with Chris Matthews|date=June 29, 2004] [cite news|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/5319756/|title=Call it a tale of two 'Fahrenheits'|publisher=MSNBC|date=June 29 2004] Bradbury himself is the author of several works with appropriated titles, including "Something Wicked This Way Comes" (a quotation from Shakespeare's "Macbeth"), "The Golden Apples of the Sun" (a quotation from Yeats), "Beyond 1984" (Orwell's "1984"), and "Another Tale of Two Cities" (Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities").

Attacks on the film

"Move America Forward"'s letter-writing campaign

The conservative political action group Move America Forward mounted a letter-writing campaign pressuring theater chains not to screen the film, which it compared to "an al-Qaeda training video." [cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20041119212806/http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/columnists/howard_gensler/8933698.htm?1c|author=Howard Gensler|title=Moore controversy over '9/11 Fahrenheit'|work=Philadelphia Daily News|date=June 16, 2004] "We've been causing them [the cinemas] an enormous amount of aggravation", said group member and talk radio host Melanie Morgan. [cite web|url=http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/06/23/fahrenhype/index_np.html|title=Michael Moore terrorizes the Bushies!|author=John Gorenfeld|work=Salon|date=June 23, 2004]

Citizens United's FEC challenge

Citizens United, a conservative 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. [ [http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040806mur.html FEC finding] August 6, 2004] A further complaint filed in 2005 was also rejected. [ [http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/20050809mur.html FEC finding] August 9, 2005]

Controversy about the film's content

English-American journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens, author and attorney Dave Kopel and Democratic politician Ed Koch contend that "Fahrenheit 9/11" contains distortions and untruths and is propaganda.cite web
last =Hitchens
first =Christopher
authorlink =Christopher Hitchens
title =Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore
work =
publisher =Slate.com
date =2004-06-21
url =http://www.slate.com/id/2102723
accessdate =2007-07-12 ] cite news
last =Koch
first =Ed
authorlink =Ed Koch
title =Moore’s propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation
publisher ="World Tribune"
date =2004-06-28] 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). [cite web|url=http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/|title=Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11|author=Michael Moore|work=MichaelMoore.com]

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. 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, [cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html|title=Florida recount study: Bush still wins|work=CNN] "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. Dave Kopel argues that Bush's Florida vote count was hurt by several thousand votes because networks incorrectly announced that Florida polls were closed (Eastern time zone) when they were still open in conservative panhandle counties (Central time zone, one hour earlier).cite web
last =Kopel
first =Dave
authorlink =Dave Kopel
title=Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11
publisher =Independence Institute
date =2004-11-12
url =http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
accessdate =2007-08-08]

Bush reading to school children

Early on in the film, Moore explains that President Bush continued reading 'The Pet Goat' to a classroom of children for an extended period of time after being told of the attacks. Although the book is actually titled Reading Mastery 2, there is 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?" [cite news | title=Sarasota principal defends Bush from ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ portrayal | publisher=THE ASSOCIATED PRESS |date=2004-06-24] This point is dismissed by Moore's defenders as a false dilemma. [cite news | url=http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/f911/hitch-moore.htm | title=Hitchens vs. Moore | author=| publisher=|date=2004-08-27] Many figures and pundits, including personality Bill Maher, argue that he simply could have excused himself and calmly left without creating a stir.Fact|date=August 2007

A 9/11 Commission Staff Report entitled "Improvising a Homeland Defense" offers this unique insight into Bush's thinking: "The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening." [cite web| url=http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_17.pdf| title=Improvising a Homeland Defense| format=PDF, page 22] However, according to senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon and his look at the Bush administration's response to 9/11, "Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House", Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was holding up a legal pad upon which he had written a message telling Bush not to say anything yet. [cite news | title=Suddenly, a time to lead | author=Bill Sammon | publisher=THE WASHINGTON TIMES |date=2002-10-07]

Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence

According to Christopher Hitchens, Michael Moore had argued in a previous public debate that Osama was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus questions the treatment of Osama in the film. "Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell." But according to Stephen Himes, who reproduces a partial transcript of the actual public debate, Moore also expressed his view that, "if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice." [cite web|url=http://flakmag.com/film/fahrenheit2.html|title=Doublethink: Michael Moore, Christopher Hitchens, George Orwell and the Soul of the American Left|author= Stephen Himes|work=Flak Magazine|month=August | year=2004]

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 U.S. after 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. [cite web|url=http://www.houseofbush.com/files.php#newflights|title=The Bush-Saudi Files: The Documents|author=Craig Unger|work=House of Bush, House of Saud]

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.Fact|date=August 2007

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." [York, Byron. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_55/ai_109411350 How did assorted bin Ladens get out of America after September 11?] "National Review". September 29, 2003.]

* March 24, 2004: [cite web|url=http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing8/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-03-24.htm#clarke|work=National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States|title=Eighth Public Hearing|date=March 24, 2004] 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,cite web|url=http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx|title=Clarke claims responsibility|author=Alexander Bolton|work=TheHill.com|date=May 26, 2004] 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.Fact|date=August 2007

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.Fact|date=August 2007

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."cite web|url=http://www.hillnews.com/news/051804/binladen.aspx|title=Who let bin Ladens leave U.S.?|author=Alexander Bolton|work=TheHill.com|date=May 18, 2004]

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." 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".

tatements by Commission members regarding the flights

The May 18 article in The Hill, which was published prior to Clarke's May 25 claim of 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 quoted 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."

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 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."

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". [cite web|url=http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_10.pdf|title=Immediate Response to 9/11: The Saudi Flights|pages=12|format=PDF|work=National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States]

A September 2, 2004 CNN news article [cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/02/binladen.wealth.ap/|title=Bin Laden's wealth not the force behind 9/11|author=The Associated Press|date=September 2, 2004|work=CNN] ] 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 to support him as well. "They are very close to Osama," she said."

Taliban visit

Members of the Taliban are shown visiting Texas during George W. Bush's term as governor. "Fox News" allege that Moore mentions this in order to imply that Bush invited the Taliban. They counter that their visit to the US was authorized by the Clinton administration, which also met with Taliban members [cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html|title=The Truth About 'Fahrenheit 9/11'|work=Fox News|date=June 29, 2004] (although the Clinton administration later imposed economic sanctions against the Taliban [cite web|url=http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/side2/1053291|title=U.S. slaps sanctions on Taliban for aid to bin Laden|date=July 7, 1999|work=Houston Chronicle|author=John C. Henry] ).

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.Fact|date=August 2007

War in Iraq

The film suggests that the invasion of Iraq was an illegitimate attack on a sovereign nation—an unnecessary attack against a contrived threat. It 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.

Critics point out that the film does not mention the history of repression, aggression, war crimes and the general state of human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, nor Iraq's noncompliance with numerous United Nations resolutions. Moore has frequently stated his opinion that Hussein was a brutal tyrant, though this opinion is not mentioned in the film. He said calling attention to Saddam's crimes was unnecessary considering the corporate media had continually pressed that point themselves, making it public knowledge.

Who doesn't know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did a wonderful job hammering that home every day in order to convince the public that they should support the war. For 20 seconds in this film, I become essentially the only person to say, I want you to take a look at the human beings that were living in Iraq in 2003. [...] Anyone who takes that and says that I'm trying to say that Saddam's Iraq was some utopia is just a crackpot. [cite news|last=Fierman|first=Daniel|title=The Passion Of Michael Moore|publisher=Entertainment Weekly|date=2004-07-09|url=http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,659914,00.html ]

Another controversy involved the statement of Marine corporal Abdul Henderson. When asked by Moore 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. [cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-07-28-fahrenheit-marine_x.htm|title='Fahrenheit' soldier in hot water?|author=Gary Strauss|date=July 28, 2004|work=USA Today]

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 [cite web|url=http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm|title=Unocal reiterates Afghanistan position at Annual Meeting of Stockholders|work=Unocal.com|date=May 20, 2002] its support from the project after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998, [cite web|url=http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/082198.htm|title=Unocal Statement: Suspension of activities related to proposed natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan|date=August 21, 1998|work=Unocal.com] reiterated its position in 1999 [cite web|url=http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/99news/021699.htm|title=Unocal reiterates position on withdrawal from trans-Afghanistan pipeline project|date=February 16, 1999|work=Unocal.com] 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. [cite web|url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html|title=Afghanistan Fact Sheet|work=Energy Information Administration Country Analysis Briefs|month=June | year=2004] However, in 2002 Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to revive [cite web|url=http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?id=674|title=Karzai was adviser to Unocal !!|author=Grattan Healy|date=March 1, 2002|work=IndyMedia] 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. Unocal Corporation was acquired by Chevron in 2005. [citenews | first=Ronald | last=White | coauthors= | title=Chevron reports record earnings |date=2007-02-03 | publisher=Los Angeles Times | url= | work= | pages= | accessdate =2007-06-07 Accessed via Lexis-Nexis.]

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 the 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.Fact|date=August 2007

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). [cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/3/chapters/3/sections/section_202.html|title=United States Code: Title 3 - The President: Chapter 3 - Protection of the President; United States Secret Service Uniformed Division|work=FindLaw for Legal Professionals] [cite web|url=http://www.secretservice.gov/ud.shtml|title=United States Secret Service: Protection: Uniformed Division|work=SecretService.gov] 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 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.

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, Lt. Col. Chester Buckenmaier, Moore took "a very positive thing we're doing for soldiers" who lost limbs and "used it to tell a lie." [cite web|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/222345p-191015c.html|title=G.I. pans '9/11' role|author=Richard Sisk|work=New York Daily News|date=August 15, 2004] Damon sued Moore in federal court for $85 million, alleging that the film gave a false impression and was defamatory. [cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197637,00.html|title=Iraq Vet Sues Michael Moore for Misleading Interview in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'|author=Jennifer Fermino|work=Fox News|date=June 1, 2006] Moore's attorney argued in response that the film quoted Damon verbatim and did not take his statements out of context or give a false impression. The judge agreed and dismissed Damon's suit. [cite web|url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/20/america/NA_GEN_US_Veteran_Lawsuit_Fahrenheit_9-11.php|title=US judge rejects Iraq war veteran's lawsuit over 'Fahrenheit 9/11'|author=Associated Press|work=International Herald Tribune|date=December 20, 2006]

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 one of the Marines, Staff Sergeant Raymond J. Plouhar. Plouhar claimed that he and his fellow Marines 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. Fact|date=February 2008

Unauthorized use of material

Unauthorised copying of the movie was widespread. An early version taped at a cinema was distributed by the peer-to-peer file sharing client BitTorrent. [ [http://web.archive.org/web/20040705013810/http://www.sundayherald.com/43167 Moore: pirate my film, no problem] The Sunday Herald July 4 2004] The distributors expressed unhappiness and suggested potential legal action, but according to the "Sunday Herald", Moore's own response was, "I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off of my labour". [cite web | url=http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/5386.cfm | title=Moore: Go ahead, pirate my movie | date=July 5, 2004 | author=Iain S Bruce | work=Sunday Herald ] A "mint copy" of the film possibly appeared on the Lions Gate website itself, reported "The Inquirer". [ [http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17066 Michael Moore gives thumbs up to file sharers] The Inquirer July 7 2004] Unlicensed screenings were also held in Cuba. [ [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3534028.stm Fahrenheit clear of Oscar threat] BBC News August 4 2004] Moore had expressed similar sentiments before the film's theatrical release.Fact|date=August 2007

References

External links

* [http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/ "Fahrenheit 9/11" War Room] Michael Moore's official response to critics of "Fahrenheit 9/11"
* [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/29/1420223 Interview with Urban Hamid] Embedded filmmaker who shot some of the Iraqi footage in the film
* [http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ Unfairenheit 9/11] A critical essay by Christopher Hitchens
** [http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/f911/hitch-moore.htm A Defense of "Fahrenheit 9/11"] A point-by-point response to Christopher Hitchens
* [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek Under the Hot Lights] by Michael Isikoff
** [http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/smackdown/index.php?id=6 Michael Isikoff and Newsweek Magazine Deceive the Public About "Fahrenheit 9/11"] By Michael Moore
* [http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040712&s=klawans&c=1 By Way of Deception] by Stuart Klawans
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43295-2001Jun8?language=printer The Wrong Way to Fix the Vote] by Gregory Palast