Criticism of Moore unfounded, biased
Re: “Michael Moore turns up the heat on conservatives with Fahrenheit” review, June 24
The attempts of right-wing groups to censor Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 border on the hysterical. The lynch job by Christina Diaz is so appallingly done that it fails to deliver its message. One would think that an article that outright describes Moore’s film as a “fictitious flick,” would show evidence to prove that events and scenarios painted in the documentary were manufactured; instead, it rambled and landed nowhere.
That said, what scares Republicans so much about the movie is that it is based on recorded facts. Even the Bushes do not deny that they are business associates with the bin Laden family or that when all flights were grounded in the aftermath of the 9/11 events, the bin Laden family — the very people that would, in all probability, have been in the best position to lead the intelligence services to Osama — was, through private arrangements with the president, spirited out of the United States
It is also indisputable that immediately after (some even suggest before) 9/11, Mr. Bush zeroed in on the convenient bogeyman from his father’s regime, Saddam, as his primary target in the so-called War on Terror. With false evidence and a work of pure fiction displayed at the United Nations, and by deliberate lies told to the American public (imputing a link between Saddam and the falling of the towers), Bush plunged America into a war, the true casualties of which will not be known until several years after its culmination (and by this I refer to the American soldiers who would be returning to this nation as victims of physiological and psychological injuries, not unlike their Desert Storm forebears).
War is big business and the majority of military contracts (including the Halliburton no-bid jobs) were used to enrich friends of the present White House administration. All of these are facts that Republicans fear the public coming to know in an election year; that is why the movie has become so vilified by those it threatens before even being screened. The truth remains, though: The facts presented are real and indisputable. Americans are not too dumb to figure this out, and that’s what Ms. Diaz and the like are afraid of.
Ade Oremosu is a graduate student in Architecture.
Facts in Rush preview were wrong
Re: “Looking for music and quality? Look no further than these concert events”, June 24
If you are going to discuss Rush, please get your facts straight. First, this is the 30-year anniversary of the first album’s release; though they are celebrating their “30th Anniversary Tour,” they formed in 1969.
Further, and more importantly, they have not been touring the world with the original lineup. You specifically mentioned John Rutsey. Does the name Neil Peart sound familiar? He is one of the most renowned drummers and Rush’s primary lyricist. Peart did his first show with the band Aug. 14, 1974 in Pittsburgh and has been touring with them ever since. Rutsey, the original drummer, has not toured with the band since July 25, 1974 (after completing only about 20 concerts with the band).
Where do you get your information?
Melissa Coakley is a graduate student in philosophy.