MichaelMoore.com : Books + Films : Fahrenheit 9/11 : Teacher's Guide

More in-depth questions for discussion or essays by topic

THE MEDIA'S ROLE IN ELECTION 2000

1. FOX PROJECTS, WHO OBJECTS?

After numerous news networks projected Gore as the winner of Florida, Fox News Channel was the first to project Bush as the winner.

Why do you suppose some networks quickly followed suit while others, such as the Associated Press, never called Florida for Bush?

2. KIN MAKES THE CALL

On election night 2000, Bush's first cousin, John Ellis, was in charge of the "decision desk" at Fox News. Ellis admits to making telephone calls to George W. Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush several times while votes were being counted. He says he broke no rules.

Although clearly a trained professional, do you think it is a conflict of interest for Ellis to hold a high profile job at Fox News? If in the same position, would you be able to do your job objectively? At what point would your objectivity be compromised?

How often do you think news networks are influenced by their affiliations with other people and organizations?

3. PROTESTERS? WHAT PROTESTERS?

According to the Boston Globe, tens of thousands of protesters showed up along Bush's inaugural parade route to "proclaim that he and Vice President Dick Cheney had "stolen' the election." Bush chose not to partake in the traditional walk to the White House.

Why was this not more widely publicized? Why would news networks choose not to highlight such a large demonstration? While Bush continues to be protested virtually everywhere he goes, especially in foreign countries, why do we see so little of this in the national media? Has the media been fair or have they been guilty of failing to report many negative aspects of Bush's presidency?

ELECTION 2000

1. HARRIS THE FAIREST?

Florida's final vote tally was certified by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who had co-chaired Bush's state campaign and served as a Bush delegate during the Republican National Convention. Rep. Peter Deutsch, D-Florida argued that her decision to put a deadline on a countywide hand recount in Palm Beach County was "a strategic decision by the Bush campaign to hurt the litigation efforts." At the time, newly-counted votes that had not registered in machine counts were showing a slight gain for Gore in the Democratic-leaning county. Harris said the deadline would stand, "in order to effectuate the public's right to clarity and finality."

In light of her authority over the Florida voting controversy, do you think Katherine Harris acted fairly or was she influenced by her political leanings and affiliations? What would you do if faced with overseeing the seemingly endless hand-counting of thousands of ballots while the nation waited in the balance?

2. VOTES LOSSED, TOSSED

Of the 179,855 ballots invalidated by the state of Florida, slightly more than half were reportedly cast by African American voters. According to the Guardian, Database Technologies, a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, was reportedly "responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida's voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election."

While some cite low literacy rates and voter error as problems in precincts where there was a high "spoilage" rate of ballots, others, such as author Greg Palast, claim there is a "racial bend in the vote-count procedures." After Gadsden County, Florida, emerged with the highest spoilage rate in the state -- and the highest percentage of African American voters -- Palast reports "public outcry forced the government to change that black county's procedures to match that of white counties. The result: near zero spoilage in the 2002 election." In essence, Palast argues the ballot design, machines and procedure control spoilage.

What do you think? Do you think Florida officials assigned less importance to African American votes? Was it deliberate? What can be done nationwide to ensure that every vote is counted?

3. CHUCK THE COLLEGE?

Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election.

Do you think the Electoral College is worthwhile? What would change if it was abolished?

4. JUSTICE FROM JUSTICES?

Do you think the United States Supreme Court acted without bias in their ruling of the 2000 presidential election? Should we be concerned when an election is decided by justices appointed for life by various past presidents rather than the voters?

5. IS THERE A SENATOR IN THE HOUSE?

When Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus stood up and opposed the assignment of Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush, why didn't a single senator step up to sign the objections? Why do you suppose Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) advised them not to cooperate?

ON THE DAY OF 9/11

1. BUSH UNDER ATTACK

Much has been talked about regarding Bush's reaction at the moment he learned from his chief of staff that the nation was "under attack."

What do you think Bush -- who was visiting a Florida elementary school -- should have done at the moment he learned a second plane had hit the World Trade Center? How would you have reacted?

2. DO WHAT?

In the film, Michael Moore says that after learning of the attacks, "Nearly seven minutes passed with nobody doing anything...Not knowing what to do, with no one telling him what to do, Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read My Pet Goat with the children."

Do you think Bush regularly has people telling him what to do? To what degree do you think Bush's actions are influenced by his advisors and political affiliates or campaign contributors? How heavily does he rely on his staff for advice? Do you think a president should be intelligent and knowledgeable him/herself or be able to choose intelligent and knowledgeable advisors?

3. SHAFIQ, IS THAT YOUR BRO?

On the morning of 9/11, the Carlyle Group, a huge investment company with longtime ties to the Bush family, the Saudi Arabian government, and the military industrial complex, was holding their annual investor conference at a hotel in Washington, D.C. Attendees included, among others, former President George H.W. Bush, James Baker (secretary of state under George H.W. Bush), and Shafiq bin Laden, Osama's half-brother, who was overseeing his family's investment in the Carlyle Group (the bin Ladens have since pulled out, as has George H.W. Bush).

Could the fact that the bin Ladens were investors in the Carlyle Group have affected the government's pursuit of Osama? How do you think the average American feels knowing Bush Sr. was working for a defense-oriented firm that has extensive business interests in Saudi Arabia while his son, Bush Jr. was preparing to wage war in Iraq?

TERRORIST WARNINGS PRIOR TO 9/11

1. CLARKE DISSED/OPPORTUNITY MISSED?

An August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing was titled, "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." It outlined potential threats, such as known al Qaeda members who were also U.S. citizens, as well as suspicious activity "consistent with preparations for hijackings" and potential "attacks with explosives."

In light of this, why do you suppose Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism advisor to both Clinton and George W. Bush, was never allowed to brief Bush before 9/11 on the threat of terrorism? Why did Bush cut terrorism funding from the FBI? Did Bush think the threats were overblown? Did he trust the intelligence agencies to stop attacks before they happened?

2. DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS

Before 9/11, Richard Clarke and other White House intelligence officials claimed there hadn't been proof of Iraqi terrorism against the United States since Saddam Hussein allegedly attempted to assassinate the first President Bush while he was visiting Kuwait in 1993. After 9/11, Clarke said he expected the administration to focus on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Instead he was ordered to find out if there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq. After stating he'd examined the issue and found no connection, Clarke said, "...the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, "Iraq did this.'"

Assuming Clarke's assertions are accurate, why was the Bush administration so eager to link al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden with Iraq? Why did the Bush administration not appear to actively pursue a Saudi connection to 9/11 when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis and it was suspected that Saudi money had funded al Qaeda?

3. OSAMA THE SOOTHSAYER?

In a March, 2004 interview, Richard Clarke, stated: "Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it -- an oil rich Arab country...This was part of his propaganda. So what do we do after 9/11? We invade an oil rich, and occupy and oil rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda and the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second generation al Qaeda, have greatly strengthened."

Why do you think Osama predicted our invasion of an oil rich Arab country? Do you think the United States is safer since the United States invaded Iraq? Do you think the invasion has helped decrease or increase the threat of terrorist acts against the United States and its interests around the world? How much credibility do you think Osama bin Laden has in Muslim countries?

SECURITY MEASURES

1. FORGET DRAGNET

In the days immediately following 9/11, all private and commercial airline traffic was grounded. After Sept. 13, White House-approved private jets and commercial planes carried 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, out of the United States. According to the ACLU, in the months following Sept. 11 hundreds of foreign immigrants Ð mostly Muslim Arab or South Asian men Ð were detained for weeks or months "in the name of keeping America safe." In most cases, there was no evidence of the immigrants' involvement in terrorist attacks and detainees were thrown into "legal limbo," being "denied the due process rights they would have been entitled to had they actually been charged with crimes."

If hundreds of immigrants were rounded up and detained because of their religion or country of origin, why do you suppose 142 Saudis and members of the bin Laden family were not detained for further questioning? Was the government justified in detaining hundreds immigrants who hadn't been charged with crimes?

2. UNDERCOVER BIG BROTHER

In 2003 it was discovered that the Fresno County Sheriff's Department had sent a deputy to infiltrate a local anti-war group known as Peace Fresno. The deputy's true identity was only discovered by the group when he was killed in a motorcycle accident. In addition, San Francisco Bay Area resident Barry Reingold was visited at home by FBI agents after speaking out against Bush's policies at a local gym.

Do you think the sheriff's department was justified in sending an undercover deputy to Peace Fresno meetings? If not, at what point do you think it would be justified? Do you think Peace Fresno could pose a potential threat to national security? How about Barry Reingold? How do you feel about the fact that someone at Reingold's gym reported him to the FBI? Were you surprised the FBI responded?

3. SELECTIVE WAR ON TERROR?

Bush's "War on Terrorism" has cost the nation billions of dollars in an effort to beef up security. In March of 2003 roughly 180,000 personnel from 22 government organizations became part of the Department of Homeland Security. It's said to be the largest government reorganization since the onset of the Cold War. The DHS's many activities include keeping out terrorists, criminals and dangerous material, strengthening seaport security, and improving security at airports.

With all this DHS activity, how do you explain the fact that a single Oregon state trooper is assigned to patrol a 1,400-square-mile territory that includes 100 miles of roads on the central coast? Why is it that passengers are allowed to take four books of matches and two lighters on an airplane? Have you or someone you know carried something on an airplane you shouldn't have?

FEAR AND THE PATRIOT ACT

1. CONGRESS NOT READING BILLS: A PATRIOTIC ACT?

In October of 2003, just 45 days after 9/11, the U.S House of Representatives voted 337-79 to pass the USA Patriot Act with virtually no debate. Some complained that no one could have had time to read the 342-page law before voting on it. According to the ACLU, "Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done."

Were you surprised to learn that Congress did not read the Patriot Act before voting on it? How do you feel about the fact that lawmakers are sometimes asked to vote on bills they have not read? Does that influence the democratic process? Do you think the system should be changed? If so, how?

2. NO TIME TO THINK, SAYS SHRINK

In the film, Congressman Jim McDermott, (D-Wash.), who is a psychiatrist, said fear tactics, such as terror alerts, are "creating an aura of endless threat" when there is none. "You can make people do anything if they're afraid," he said; the government has "played us like an organ" and the mixed messages of fear and safety are "crazy making."

What is the purpose of color-coded terror alerts? What do you personally do when the threat alert is raised? Do you think people are more likely to relinquish certain rights if they think they will be safer? Do you agree or disagree with Michael Moore's assertion that the government "wanted us to be fearful enough to get behind their plan" of an Iraqi invasion? How do you feel about Moore's point that prior to the invasion, Iraq had "never attacked or threatened to attack the United States?"

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

1. HAPPY HOUR WITH THE TALIBAN AROUND THE POOL

In 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, executives of Unocal, an international energy company, hosted a delegation of Taliban leaders in Texas to discuss the construction of a gas pipeline across Afghanistan. At the time it was already known the group was imposing a fundamentalist regime throughout much of Afghanistan, which, by their own interpretation of Islamic law, decreed amputations and executions for criminals and severe restrictions for women. As the film mentions, in 2001, "just five and a half months before 9/11, the Bush administration welcomed a special Taliban envoy to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban government." At the time, it was known the Taliban was harboring Osama bin Laden, who had taken credit for bombing the USS Cole and U.S. embassies in Africa.

Should corporations make large business deals with groups, movements or governments known for human rights violations and harboring a known terrorist? Are such deals justified if some of the money trickles down to those who need it? What do you say to economists who assert that for the profit motive to work it cannot be watered down with moral concerns? Or to attorneys who say that corporate boards and CEOs have a legal obligation to shareholders to maximize profit?

2. DOUBLE STANDARD?

Saudi Arabia possesses the largest proven oil reserves worldwide, with Iraq second. In 2003, Saudi Arabia reportedly supplied the U.S. with 1.7 million barrels per day of crude oil. It's estimated that Saudi Arabia has roughly $860 billion invested in the United States, which amounts to roughly six or seven percent of America's Wall Street investments. According to Amnesty International's 2004 annual report, gross human rights violations continue in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which are exacerbated by "anti-terrorism" policies. At least 50 people were executed and critics of the state arrested or detained. There are no free elections. Discrimination against women continues to be endemic, and torture remains prevalent.

With the United States sending troops into Iraq in the name of democracy and freedom, how can the Bush administration justify its cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia? Does our need for oil explain it? If oil is the primary reason for both the Iraq war and support for the oppressive Saudi regime, do we just put up with it or is there some other alternative?

CORPORATE TIES

1. MONEY BAGS

Many elected officials have run or invested heavily in corporations during their professional lives. Many others who make their careers in government eventually retire to take lucrative jobs with those corporations they dealt with while in government.

At what point might this affect the ability of government employees to fairly represent the interests of the American people as a whole? How would you handle this problem?

2. WAR PROFITEERING?

The Carlyle Group is reportedly one of the world's largest private equity firms, with more than $16 billion under management. It invests in government-regulated industries like telecommunications, health care, and defense. As of 2003, with all its holdings, Carlyle was the equivalent of the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation. The Bush and bin Laden families were both connected to the Carlyle Group, beginning in the mid-1990s. The investment group is known to handle a significant amount of Saudi wealth. As Michael Moore said in the film, "September 11 guaranteed that United Defense (owned by Carlyle) was going to have a very good year."

How do you feel about the fact that multinational conglomerates like the Carlyle Group make money off of the U.S. going to war? Is it a serious conflict of interest to be dealt with or simply inevitable in a capitalist society?

3. VEEP AIN'T CHEAP

The Houston-based Halliburton Corporation has landed monstrous government contracts totaling billions of dollars during the ongoing Iraq war. Some argue the increasing trend by the government to delegate logistical operations to a single for-profit corporation ends up costing taxpayers more money rather than less. This practice dates back to the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, when Brown and Root -- of which Halliburton is the parent company -- landed a contract. Cutbacks in military spending and a string of wars supposedly limit government resources, requiring "military outsourcing" to private companies like Halliburton. From 1995 to 2000, Dick Cheney served as Halliburton's chief executive, until he resigned to run for vice president. It was reported that Cheney sold most of his shares when he departed, but retained stock options worth roughly $8 million.

Why have some people expressed concern over the fact that Cheney was once a CEO for Halliburton, now the biggest single government contractor in Iraq? What do you think about the practice of hiring private companies to implement the U.S. government's support operations? How does the government justify the startling pay discrepancy between private workers and military personnel? How do you feel about private corporations profiting from the destruction of war?

4. "W" STANDS FOR WEALTH

In the film, Bush is seen giving a speech at a gathering of people he called "the haves and the have mores." During his speech, he jokes, "Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

What did Bush mean by that comment? Why do so many wealthy Americans support George Bush?

SAUDI TIES

1. WHO'S YOUR DADDY?

The Bush family has longtime ties with the Saudi Arabian government and the bin Laden family, all of whom have been associated with the Carlyle Group. Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton and had close ties with Saudi Arabia. In addition, George W. Bush's friend, James R. Bath, managed money for the bin Ladens and invested in Bush's fledgling oil business venture, Arbusto Energy. Because the bin Laden family is part of the Saudi ruling class, it has close ties Ð both personal and financial Ð to Saudi Arabia's pro-United States royal family. An estimated $ 860 billion have been invested in the United States by Saudi Arabians, amounting to roughly six to seven percent of Wall Street investments.

In light of the Saudis' considerable financial holdings in the U.S. and their past shared investments with the Bushes, how do you think this affects President Bush's foreign policy decisions and his ability to effectively represent his constituents? What do you think would happen if U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia suddenly became hostile?

2. WHO'S HIS DADDY?

In 1991, Osama bin Laden, who became interested in fundamentalism as a college student, denounced the royal family's decision to allow 540,000 U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia while fighting the Gulf War. At the same time other members of the bin Laden family were reportedly making millions of dollars building air strips and military housing for American soldiers. When thousands of troops stayed after the end of the Gulf War, Osama accused Saudi Arabia of being a puppet of the United States and said it was the duty of all Muslims to drive the U.S. out of the Gulf region. Osama's father, Mohammed bin Laden, left an estimated $300 million to Osama, whose Saudi citizenship was eventually taken away. He was forced to leave the country in 1994.

How do you suppose the son of an entrepreneurial father who has invested billions around the world evolved into an enemy of the capitalist West? What would cause him to make such a radical departure from his family's ideology, not to mention their economic and political power? What values do you think Osama continues to share with his family?

3. FAMILY TIES -- BLOOD THICKER THAN OIL?

Fearing reprisals, members of the bin Laden family were -- with permission from the U.S. government -- transported out of the U.S. shortly after 9/11. That same year, some bin Laden family members reportedly attended the wedding of Osama's son in Afghanistan.

How do you feel about the fact that some members of the bin Laden family participated in corporate ventures in the United States (along with the Bush family), while others attended Osama's son's nuptials? If push came to shove, where do you think the loyalties of the bin Ladens would lie?

4. YOU SCRATCH MY BACK...

Saudi officials have been criticized for failing to cooperate with investigations into the 9/11 attacks, and were reluctant to freeze hijackers' assets. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, "One top U.S. official told the joint inquiry staff that the Saudis since 1996 would not cooperate on matters relating to Osama bin Laden. Robert Baer, a former CIA officer, said the Saudis blocked FBI agents from talking to relatives of the 15 hijackers and following other leads in the kingdom." Just two nights after the 9/11 attacks, Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar, affectionately known by the Bush family as "Bandar Bush," had dinner with Bush at the White House.

Based on the alleged actions of the Saudi Kingdom, why aren't relations between the Saudi royals and the Bush administration more strained? Is the Bush administration afraid of offending the Saudis or is he simply feeling the need to keep diplomatic relations positive?

5. BUSH NOT EAGER TO INVESTIGATE 9/11

President Bush was eager to stop or limit the scope of a 9/11 investigation set up by Congress. When that didn't work, he was accused of trying to derail the creation of an independent commission. In addition, 28 pages of the Congressional 9/11 report were censored by the White House. Top U.S. officials believe the Saudi Arabian government may have given the Saudi hijackers logistical and financial support. Those suspicions have prompted lawmakers to ask that classified sections of the report be made public.

Why does the Bush administration seem reluctant to discuss the possibility that Saudis could be implicated in the 9/11 attacks? Have his long-time ties with the Saudis clouded his judgment or is he simply protecting the world's biggest oil supplier? If the allegations are true, what would motivate the Saudi government to support the hijackers and be sympathetic to the cause of al Qaeda?

6. SAY WHAT! TOP BUSH LAWYER IS REPRESENTING WHO?

The film states, "More than 500 relatives of 9/11 victims filed suit against the Saudi royals and others. The lawyers the Saudi Defense Minister hired to fight the 9/11 families was the law firm of Bush family confidant James A. Baker." Baker, a senior counselor for the Carlyle Group and one of George W. Bush's campaign managers, represented Bush in Florida during the 2000 presidential election controversy. Baker also served as the secretary of state under George H.W. Bush.

Why do you think James A. Baker's firm would opt to defend the Saudi royals in a suit regarding Americans who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks? As a close confidant to President Bush, should Baker adhere to a certain code of conduct? Is it a conflict of interest? Why do you think the Saudi royals chose Baker's firm to represent them?

MILITARY MADNESS

1. TAKING A BATH BREAK

In the film, Michael Moore said when the White House released the president's military service records in 2004, there was "one glaring difference between the records released in 2000 and those he released in 2004... A name had been blacked out. In 1972, two airmen were suspended for failing to take their medical examination. One was George W. Bush and the other was James R. Bath." Bath was the Texas money manager for the bin Laden family (who invested in Arbusto) and had become good friends with George W. Bush.

Why do you think the two men would opt to not take a required medical examination? Why did the White House think it was necessary to black out Bath's name? How much of a president's personal information should be open to public scrutiny? Does Bush's military history influence your opinion of him?

2. LILA GIVES BOOT TO BOOTCAMP

For years, Lila Lipscomb encouraged family members and job-seeking clients to explore opportunities available through the military. After losing her son and receiving his last letter, her point of view appeared to change abruptly regarding military service.

In addition to the loss of a child, what do you think changed her mind? Given the situation in Iraq today, how would you feel if you or a family member were deployed? Are the benefits of the military worth the risks? How would you feel about being deployed if you disagreed with the government's policies?

3. MILITARY EYE FOR THE POOR GUY

In the film, the Marine Corps recruiters claimed to have had better luck finding recruits at the Flint shopping center where people with lower incomes tended to shop.

How do you feel about the fact that some people join the military because it's the only way they can get an education or a job? How did you feel about the recruiters' tactics in the film? Is it fair that a disproportionate number of America's poor are the first to die in military conflicts? Are they benefiting disproportionately from the fruits of war? Do you think it would counter the U.S. tendency to go to war if we spent a lot more money on jobs and education? Would this dry up the flow of poor recruits to the military? If so, what would the masters of war do next?

4. HENDERSON TAKES A STAND

In the film, Marine Cpl. Abdul Henderson said he was willing to face jail time rather than go back to Iraq. He said, "I will not let anyone send me back over there to kill other poor people, especially when they pose no threat to me and my country." In addition, other U.S. troops in the film harshly criticized the Bush administration and their reasons for going to war.

Do you think members of the military are justified in speaking out against the war or against the military itself or do they have a duty to serve silently? What would you do if you were deployed to Iraq today? Do you think the troops who are deployed to Iraq are more or less distrustful of the government than young people who remain at home? How do you feel about Henderson's willingness to publicize his views? How do you think the military feels about Henderson?

5. IF NOT YOUR CHILD, WHOSE CHILD?

At the time the film was made, of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq.

If lawmakers are willing to vote to send other people's children to war, why not send their own? Is it fair -- as the film states -- that people "who have it the hardest are always the first to step up to defend that very system?" Is this a natural result of a capitalist society with no draft in place? Should the sacrifices be more equally distributed among American citizens? Why do you think the draft was stopped after the Vietnam war?

THE COST OF WAR

1. IN YOUR OWN BACKYARD

Billions upon billions of dollars have now been earmarked for rebuilding Iraq, yet in the film several Flint, Michigan, residents point to devastating urban decay in their own backyards. In January of 2004, the unemployment rate in Flint was 17 percent, and, according to Lila Lipscomb, that didn't account for the "underemployed," or those who had fallen off the list because their unemployment had run out. With those two categories factored in, Lipscomb estimated numbers to be closer to 50 percent.

How do you feel about so much of taxpayers' money going toward Iraq versus rebuilding communities here in the U.S.? Why do you think the federal government will allow U.S. cities like Flint to decay while focusing its spending priorities abroad? Is there a point at which the government should decide they can no longer afford to spend more money fighting insurgents and rebuilding Iraq? What's our responsibility toward stabilizing Iraq's infrastructure after invading their country? What does the U.S. stand to gain -- or lose -- by investing so much in Iraq?

2. ALL RIGHT, WHO'S WITH ME?

In March of 2003, the "Coalition of the Willing" included Palau, Costa Rica, Iceland, Romania, The Netherlands and Afghanistan. According to Bush, United States and United Kingdom forces launched military operations "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

Why were so few countries willing to get behind the United States' "Operation Iraqi Freedom" plan? How important is global opinion? Has the Iraqi war had an effect on our credibility around the world?

3. DEBTS OWED TO VETS?

Thousands of U.S. soldiers have been wounded in the war and more than 1,000 killed. In the film Moore notes that Bush "proposed cutting $1.3 billion in veterans' health care and closing seven veterans' hospitals. He tried to double prescription costs for veterans and opposed full benefits for part-time reservists."

What is the government's responsibility to its veterans?

4. IT'S A TRUST THANG

In the film Moore -- in reference to military youth risking their lives -- asks, "Will young people ever trust us again?"

Who is the "us" Moore is referring to and how would you answer the question?

5. AN ENDLESS BATTLE?

Michael Moore segues into the conclusion of the film by alluding to a quote from "1984":

Moore says, "It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects, and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society in tact."

Do you agree with Moore's theory that the economic elite in this country see a need for "continuous war" at the expense of the poor? Do you see the war on terror as continous? Can you explain how the war on terror will end? How long will it take?

STATE OF THE UNION

1. STATE OF WHOSE UNION?

On January 28, 2003, Bush presented the American people with a rationale for the upcoming war on Iraq in his State of the Union speech to Congress.

Critically evaluate this rationale, both Bush's "facts" and "reasoning." (Speech available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html.)

FEATURETTE QUESTIONS

Embedded Swedish journalist Urban Hamid

What was your reaction to the images captured by Swedish war journalist Urban Hamid?

Hamid said his footage was shot three months before the Abu Ghraib abuse story, which showed similar mistreatment. Why did the media not jump on the story when Hamid showed them his footage? Are they, as Hamid says, exercising some king of self-censorship?

How did you feel about the way U.S. troops conducted the early morning home invasion?

How do you feel about the way the residents and detainees were treated? Did you think the soldiers' actions were necessary?

Do you agree with the practice of detaining relatives of suspects if the suspects themselves are not found? If, as Hamid says, this is an accepted military policy, why weren't members of the bin Laden family detained following 9/11?

What can be done to ensure detainees, who have not been charged with a crime, are treated fairly?

How prevalent do you think the abuse of detainees is under these tense circumstances? Why do you suppose the commanding officer did nothing to stop inappropriate actions?

Why do you think some soldiers felt it was okay to humiliate the detainees and deny them food and water?

What happens when large numbers of detainees are housed together? What do you suppose happens to military personnel who are forced to work long hours under poor conditions?

How important is it for troops to respect and educate themselves in the Iraqi culture?

Hamid estimated there were 1000 military raids being conducted daily all over Iraq, with each creating at least 50 enemies of U.S. occupation. With that in mind, Hamid found it easy to understand why many Iraqis would want to take part in the resistance. Put yourself in the shoes of an average Iraqi citizen. Would you find it easy or hard to believe that U.S. forces were occupying your country to improve your quality of life in the name of freedom?

When it comes to the abuse of prisoners, Hamid said the mainstream media are accomplices, along with the military. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Hamid said, "If you're a journalist who is afraid of getting burned, you should really look for anther job." What did he mean by that?

Prisoner Release: Outside Abu Ghraib

Everyday, families gather outside Abu Ghraib in hopes that a relative will be released from prison. What were your impressions of this scene and the stories Iraqis told? Did the families appear to be getting much information from U.S. prison officials?

Why do you suppose so many Iraqis were skeptical that the film footage would become part of a news report?

At the time of filming, more than 43,000 Iraqis had been arrested since the beginning of U.S. occupation, yet only 600 were referred to Iraqi authorities for prosecution. Is detaining thousands of innocent Iraqis the only way to track down those who are part of the resistance? Are there other ways to handle opposition to U.S. occupation? How do you think this practice has influenced Iraqi public opinion toward the United States?

How would Americans react if something similar happened in the United States?

Do you think American soldiers unconsciously assign lesser value to an Iraqi person's life as a way to stay sane amidst all the chaos?

Arab American Comedy Festival

How do you feel about the way Arab Americans, such as Ahmed Ahmed, have been treated by the airlines and society in general? Are such actions justified?

Did you learn anything from the comedians' accounts of their real life experiences after 9/11?

Are you wary of certain people based on their racial appearance? Why or why not? Why does it seem to happen so much? What have you leaned in school about the racial history of the United States that might help answer this?

Iraq Pre-invasion

Take a position supporting or opposing Moore's statement that before the war, the U.S. media worked hand-in-hand with the Bush Administration to create a climate in which Americans would accept the bombing of a civilian population.

During the first months of the war, the U.S. and Britain dropped nearly 30,000 bombs and missiles. The civilian death toll is not known. Do you believe the actions of Saddam Hussein justified the bombing of civilians by a foreign country?

Why did Michael Moore think it was important to film everyday life in Iraq prior to the war? What were your impressions of life in Iraq?

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, economic sanctions were imposed, which contributed to the deaths of more than half a million children under the age of five due to food and medicine shortages, as well as lack of sanitation and clean water. During the Gulf War, Iraqi water treatment plants, electrical power stations and bridges were bombed. Between 1991 and 2003, the United States and Britain dropped thousands of bombs and missiles on Iraq. How do you feel about imposing economic sanctions as a way to get a government to comply? What do other countries hope to accomplish by imposing these sanctions? Who do you think Iraqis directed their anger at more -- Saddam Hussein or the countries imposing the sanctions? Who are they most angry at now? Could sanctions be defined as a form of ongoing terrorism?

One Iraqi woman in the film said of the United States, "We are only fearful of their greed." What did she mean by that?

In light of the atrocities that occurred under Saddam Hussein, do you agree with the Bush administration's decision to topple his regime and introduce democracy? Are the Iraqi people better or worse off today? Do you think democracy can be imposed successfully by an outside military force? Why or why not?

Corporal Abdul Henderson, USMC

Why were soldiers like Corporal Abdul Henderson given media cards instructing them on what they could and could not say to the press?

Why did the government try to allow coverage of the war only by reporters who were embedded with a U.S. military unit? Would our impressions of Iraq be different if reporters had not been embedded? How do you think the experience affected reporters personally?

Why was Henderson touched so deeply by seeing a cross and Jesus photo in the truck of an Iraqi who had been killed by Americans?

Henderson said he sees no justification for U.S. troops to be in Iraq and there are no clear facts to convince him otherwise. Do you agree or disagree with Henderson?

Henderson said he felt as though he was being "used as a vessel for some bigger scheme." What do you think he meant by that?

You can also download the Bowling For Columbine TEACHER'S GUIDE

Welcome to the Bowling For Columbine TEACHER'S GUIDE.

The lessons and activities in this GUIDE are designed to help students develop critical thinking skills, historical analysis, and open their minds on many universal issues.

The individual units may easily be adapted to many levels and taught across the curriculum - Social Science, [History, Civics, Psychology, Sociology, Political Science] Language Arts, [English, Writing, Poetry], Humanities, Drama/Theatre, Film, ESL, Media/Journalism, Speech/Communications...

You can review the guide page by page on the website, download a PDF of each section or the whole guide.

So, go do that magic we call education! And, be sure to share, share, share!

We would love to hear from you. Send your feedback or ideas to share with other educators to: teacher@michaelmoore.com.

Click here for the full, chapter by chapter Bowling For Columbine TEACHER'S GUIDE

Table of Contents

1. Gut Reactions to the film

2. General questions for class discussion or written essays

3. Media/filmmaking questions

4. More in-depth questions for discussion or essays by topic

5. The United States and Iraq: Choices & Predictions

6. Math and Fahrenheit 9/11

7. Silent Discussion of Fahrenheit 9/11