...Or Fahrenheit 9 out of 11, as I prefer to think of it. I just posted it over at BlogCritics.
Posted
by D. Weinberger at July 1, 2004 10:42 AM
Comments
Dave, you write:
"It is manipulative and unfair. And very funny and surprisingly moving.Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't what I expected."
Your basically saying that this is a dishonest piece of work. And this is a position which I strongly disagree with. I'm sorry to have to invoke the name of Hitler, but if you went back to 1933, what kind of movie would you make to get people to wake up? How would you portray Hitler? I'm not equating Bush with Hitler, I'm simply saying that when you have millions of people who hold strong beliefs about a person, convincing them he is not who they think he is a very difficult task. What were Hitler's early misdeeds that could have been put on film in the service of this task? How would you convey the historical chain of events that unfolded that allowed such a man to seize power. How do you put it all in one film? Keep in mind that in making such a film, if you concentrate on only one or two misdeeds, and really get into the details necessary to do that you will have defeated your purpose in all likelihood. The movie will be too forensic and not many will be compelled to see it. You also have to make the movie funny.
Overall you have made a very poor case. I've read just about everything I've been able to find on this movie, from Christopher Hitchen's Slate article, to, well, your blog, and many people have expressed an opinion similar to your own, that the movie is unfair, unbalanced, etc. I saw the movie when it first came out, but after reading so many critical articles and postings around the web, I wanted to see it one more time more through the critical lens of those who have lambasted the movie for one thing or other.
Many have stated that Moore was dishonest in depicting the Bush administration's motives for invading Afghanistan. Did we invade Afghanistan so that Bush's and his cronies could lay pipe? No, but that was still on their minds. Hamid Karzai was hand picked as the president probably because of his connections to Unocal. Should you be worried that former president Bush is a consultant to the Carlyle group and considers the Saudis his "good friends"? Yes, you should be very worried about such things.
When you see this sort of stuff on the news it is hard for the average American to make sense of it if it is not put in to context. This is being generous, of course, because it usually doesn't make the news. How is one to judge whether it is proper for an ex-president to hold a position like the one Bush does in the Carlyle group? The practices of the bush family and people like Dick Cheney have been going on for so long, that they don't raise the alarm that they should. Certainly they have internalized the rationales for their shady dealings, but most shocking is that they have persuaded many others to do the same. How does this persuasion work? Simple. They just keep getting away with it. IT must be ok, it must be legal if they haven't been brought to court or prosecuted, right? Moore never said anything about conspiracies in this movie. The folks we have in power don't need conspiracies. They are far too brazen to need a conspiracy.
You state the movie was manipulative??? I think manipulative is an extremely poor choice of words, and you really don't cite examples to support this claim. It makes people uncomfortable to see bodies of children, or vets with limbs blown off or with permanent brain damage etc. Were you moved out of your comfort zone when you saw these images? Did you feel something that made you didn't want to feel? Or did you rationalize your response? I think you did the later because here is what you wrote:
"Although the footage from Iraq is raw and awful, similar footage could be found from every war, just and unjust. And a mother's grief ? Iraqi or American ? is not an argument against the war, although it may be an argument against all wars."
Who are you to say that a mother's grief is not an argument against a particular war? You do allow that it might be an argument against "all wars", but if that is so, how could it not be an argument against a particular war? Upon what criteria do you judge the validity of an argument against war anyway? What supercilious, condescending arrogance. Please tell us Dave what the reasons for going to war should be. Your comment is an affront to all mothers.
Your comment about war simply doesn't make any sense to me. All wars, good and bad (whatever that means) kill people, but Moore is saying this war is bad (which seems to be a position you agree with I suspect). He is saying " look, this is what we are doing to these people, we're blowing their kids to bits for this horrid lie." It never hurts when the tally of the dead is just a number: 26,000 killed, 6,000,000 murdered--human beings as atomistic parts. It's nice, clean, abstract, unemotional. Show one dead child, one grieving widow, be instantly accused of sensationalism. Move out of your fucking comfort zone Dave if you hate this war, if you hate this president, and do something about it besides attack the one person who has truly made a difference.
Daniel, I did not say that this is a dishonest piece of work. I said that it is unfair in that it doesn't attempt to present a balanced point of view. And I applauded it for that.
Here's why a mother's grief isn't an argument against a particular war but may be an argument against all wars. In every war, just or unjust, mothers (and fathers) grieve for their children. So, you can't put a grieving parent on film and say, "See, this war is wrong?" because you could do that whether the war is the (IMO) justifiable war against the Nazis or the (IMO) unjustifiable Iraqi war. So, to argue that a war is unjust, you can't simply say "War kills people and their parents will grieve." But it _is_ an argument against all wars because it supports the idea that all wars - which, necessarily, kill people - cause too much suffering to be worthwhile.
I think 9/11 is a terrific but not unflawed movie. I hope everyone sees it.
"I said that it is unfair in that it doesn't attempt to present a balanced point of view." Yes, and you also said it was manipulative. For which you provided no supporting evidence. I ask you, how do you go about presenting a balanced point of view in the case of Bush? If you were going to present a "balanaced point of view" of what Hitler did, how would you go about doing that? If someone lies to you, and you tell everyone that that person is a liar, are you being unfair? Of course not. Telling the truth about a liar is not being unfair. In fact, you are doing a service.
You believe that the 2nd WW was justitified. OK, were we unfair to Hitler's regime, was it wrong for the American press to not have put Hitler, for the sake of balance and fairness, at least a time or two, in a more positive light? I submitt that the concept of fairness certainly in this case is not even a concept worth considering. By suggesting that the crimes of Bush must be given fair treatment, you are giving legitimacy to those very crimes. When a leader lies to the people, and tens of thousands of people die horrible deaths including many innocent children, you know what you do, Dave? You take to the fucking streets. You work night and day doing whatever you possibly can to correct it. If you lose the fight, so be it, but it should not be on your conscience you just stood by and let it happen.
"I think 9/11 is a terrific but not unflawed movie. I hope everyone sees it."
This, unfortunately is not so much what you dwell on in your piece. You seem eager to let people know how flawed, unfair, and imbalanced it is, (while providing virtually no evidence for these views). How 'bout a few lines on how you felt when you saw Bush sit around and do nothing while people were being incinerated? Did you wonder how many millions of lives may have been lost, if instead of airplanes flying in to builidings Bush sat on his hands while nuclear missles were heading our way? How 'bout the fact that although politicians were overwhelmingly in favor of this war, all but one has a child in Iraq? How 'bout the fact that poor, under-privledged minorities are who the recruiters go after, hardly ever visiting wealthy neighborhoods? You should have expounded on these points a bit more.
The left has been shockingly critical of this movie, and I've had to try to understand why this is. My theory is that Michael Moore has made people feel profoundly uncomfortable. Not even so much in the depiction of Bush as a moron, or showing the innocent dead. It's the idea that if Bush is really as bad as he is depicted in the movie, then why haven't been doing anything? Why haven't we taken to the streets? Why haven't we written a critical article about the Bush administration? Whatever. It's much easier to believe that Bush is not nearly as bad as he is depicted, that Moore went overboard, and wound up being unfair, etc. In other words we want to pretend that it's ok to continue to be complacent. Well Dave, it's not OK anymore to be complacent, to expect others to do the work of getting people registered to vote, to hand out flyers in the street, to speak out.
Anyway, the truth is that Moore didn't chronicle even 25% of what Bush is responsible for. Whatever impression of Bush you are left with after seeing the film, he's actually much worse. Moore's major sin is actually one of ommission, not commision. But if he tried to address the war on black America, the phony drug war, the privitazation of social security, the recent gift to pharmaceuticals, the staggering environmental degradation Bush is responsible for, the undermining of the public school system, the lifting of the barrier between church and state, he wouldn't have had enough time.
So that we don't have anymore grieving mothers trying to use their dead children as an argument against this specific war, what do you plan to do to defeat Bush? When are you going to do it?
Daniel, again: I said that its being non-balanced is a good thing.
As for your personal attacks about when I am going to do something to defeat Bush: Why do you assume that I've done nothing and am doing nothing? I don't expect you, or anyone, to have read what I've written before (some of which talks about my political activity). But, since you don't know anything about me, why would you assume - based on the fact that while I liked F9/11, I didn't like it as uncritically as you do - that you're the only one in this discussion who is politically active? Or that you're the only one who cares about the poor and oppressed of the world. Jeez. If I may quote from your first post, that's arrogant and condescending. It's also factually wrong.
The idea of balance in the case of criminal Bush (something which I have already devoted sufficient time in explaining in my last post), is not a matter worth considering. Please acknowledge this! Anyway, if you think Moore was unbalanced, you should have supported your argument better. That's all.
Look, we're basically on the same team (which is what I think you're trying to say to me). I'm sure that you want Bush defeated as badly as I do. All I'm saying to you is go for the jugular. Stop worrying about whether your piece will be perceived as being balanced. The left is always to some extent at a tactical disadvantage because it attracts people who think critically about issues. No one gets a pass, not even Michael Moore. Fine. I understand this. But I think many on the left have actually used Moore's latest work to reinforce their reputation for being fair, and in the process have themselves gone a bit overboard. In all of the pieces I've read, the arguments critical of Moore's latest work are as weak and sloppy as Moore's film is purported to be. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you found the film to be in factual error state precisely why. If you found the film to be manipulative, state precisely why. If you don't support your assersions, don't expect them to go unchallenged.
Certainly in our exchange you may have sensed a bit of my anger. I think people need to let their passions flow a bit, and put aside, for a moment, their polite sensibilities. Just as you may feel that war is sometimes a necessary evil, well, so is anger. The gloves are off this time Dave, and I for one am not taking it lying down anymore. The more we are able to show a united front, the better our chances for victory.
Lastly, I am not assuming you are not doing anything. And you're right that such an assumption would be arrogant and condescending. I merely asked what you are doing and when you plan to do it. In all fairness, I accept the possibility that you may already have done much more than I have. I read your blog, I think I have a good idea how you feel about things. I'm sure most people care about the poor and oppressed, and that is one thing that gives me encouragement that together Bush can be defeated. We must all take action and stick together.
Daniel, Your first paragraph says that I need to support the view that 9/11 is unbalanced. As my review said, Moore himself acknowledged that. And my review explained what I meant adquately: He doesn't bother presenting the other side. Do you really need me to argue the fact that Bush's minions don't get equal time on screen? Or, if you're angry because you think I'm saying that unbalanced is bad, then let me threepeat for you: my review says it's GOOD that he didn't bother about balance. I don't know how to make this any clearer.
As for manipulative: I did not spell out my argument because it's too obvious to need spelling out. Moore repeatedly plays on our emotions, sometimes in lieu of making a good argument and sometimes to rouse us to action. My review talks about examples of each. You may not like it when someone is even moderately analytic about the movie, but, well, tough.
As for my proving to you what I'm doing to defeat Bush: Frankly, go to hell. You have no right to demand an accounting from me and you're not going to get one.
I also don't need a lecture from you about the value of passion.
Finally, take a look at what you're doing, Daniel. You're calling for all of us to drop our petty disagreements and rally together to defeat Bush. I agree 100%. Yet your manner of rallying us together is to find someone with whom you disagree about a movie -- and it's a disagreement only about how much we like it, with me giving it a 9 our of 11 and you giving it a 12 out of 11 -- and to jump down my throat, calling me names, accusing me of doing nothing, screeching at me about how I need to care more about the poor and the oppressed the way you do. Is that your idea of rallying together?
"Daniel, Your first paragraph says that I need to support the view that 9/11 is unbalanced."
No, that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that when someone is a liar, thief and murderer, the idea of fairness and balance is out of the question, and the very act of trying to be fair and balanced gives that person or thing legitimacy--which is exactly what your piece does, however unwittingly. As long as Moore's movie is not presenting lies, which it isn't, it is as balanced as it needs to be, in fact as it can be.
"As for my proving to you what I'm doing to defeat Bush: Frankly, go to hell. You have no right to demand an accounting from me and you're not going to get one."
I'm not demanding anything of you Dave. It was meant to be rhetorical. Furthermore, I have not launched an ad hominem attack against you as you claim. Although by saying that a mother's grief is not an argument against war, I think you have betrayed some insensitivity. Perhaps arrogance was not the proper choice of words. Besides, when you write an article that has wide dissemination, and then you post a link to it on your blog because you're proud of it, to some degree you are a fair target. You should expect that you might be subjected to harsh criticism.
I hope you are as angry at Bush as you appear to be at me. I do sincerely hope you direct it in a constructive fashion to defeat Bush.
Anyway, I don't even believe in hell.
"Finally, take a look at what you're doing, Daniel. You're calling for all of us to drop our petty disagreements and rally together to defeat Bush. I agree 100%. Yet your manner of rallying us together is to find someone with whom you disagree about a movie -- and it's a disagreement only about how much we like it, with me giving it a 9 our of 11 and you giving it a 12 out of 11 -- and to jump down my throat, calling me names, accusing me of doing nothing, screeching at me about how I need to care more about the poor and the oppressed the way you do. Is that your idea of rallying together?"
Again the facts Dave. Your last paragraph makes a fairly valid point, but your facts are wrong. Nowhere have I accused you of doing nothing. In fact I allow for the possibility that you have done more than I have! I say nothing about how you need to care more about the oppressed or anything even remotely close to that. In making an argument, the facts matter a great deal.
if anyone actually belives that Fahrenheit 9/11 is factual, they are a fool. If Clinton were bush, doing the exact same thing, and Fahrenheit 9/11 were released about clinton, you would all have the exact opposite opinion. And for the rest of you that believe that this evil man (whos power rose form the remnants of the Nazi regime) really would destroy millions of dollars in WMD's you are truly ignorant people. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and everyone was quick to point out a scene witha charred baby which the US has obviosuly killed - I can find many many more of those that saddam gassed not long ago. How many children were killed in WWII bombings and I wonder why no one was bitching then. Frankly, the first Bsh made a mess in Iraq and caused thousands to be slautered when we left and we have responsibility to clean that up! I know most would love to kiss these peoples asses, but nothing short of war could ever have fixed this. I wish we could stick the french over in the middle east for a few years and see how many days (or hours) it takes for them to beg for help. I'm a democrat, and I hate to say it, but I'll be voting for bush this time around.
No one is calling anyone names, at least I'm not, but if you immediately believe anything you see in a theater (or CNN or FOX news for that matter) you are a fool. Granted, people are more ready to believe in scandals and conspiracies rather than admit that both sides might be partially correct!
War is never a good answer but in many cases, it is a necessary evil. I wonder how many innocent would have been tortured and killed if we had waited to go into Iraq - no one will ever know! I do know that this man was evil and hated us to a point where he would do everything he could to destoy us. If there is horde of deadly snakes in my backyard that is threatening my children and family I'm sure as hell gonna kill em.
Did flights take bin Laden family members out of the U.S. over the objections of the FBI?
It's hard to make the case that flights of Saudis departed from the U.S. over the objections of the FBI when, according to former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, the FBI itself gave the go-ahead
he told Vanity Fair magazine.
Mr Clarke said he checked with FBI officials, who gave the go ahead. "So I said, 'Fine, let it happen'."6
And, as noted, the FBI was directly involved in the process of collecting bin Laden family members and ferrying them to departure points from which they could leave the country:
The young members of the bin Laden clan were driven or flown under F.B.I. supervision to a secret assembly point in Texas.3
So, in the end, it was Richard Clarke who gave final approval for the exit of the Saudis and the bin Ladens to leave.
Describing Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a challenge because one has the feeling that in this big mess of a film, there could have been a good documentary. Instead, the partisanship of Hollywood's superannuated enfant terrible produces a two-hour political ad. And most of us can barely stand 30-second spots.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" suffers from distortions, inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Major distortions include the film's portrayal of Iraq as a paradise for children and women before the Americans came, which is belied by the killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis under Saddam, his sponsorship of terrorism in Israel, etc. Another is the leap from the Bush family's oil ties to the Saudis and the Carlyle Group to an implication that the Bush administration made war on Iraq simply to get more oil and business for Halliburton. In fact, the Saudis opposed our initiation of this war, and George H. W. Bush had killed an $11 billion artillery rocket system developed by Carlyle subsidiary United Defense. Moore's implied conspiracy theory interprets facts and makes connections in much the same way as do right-wing Trilateral Commission opponents. Maybe the distance between far right and far left isn't so very far.
Inaccuracies also abound. The 9/11 Commission itself has debunked assertions that bin Ladens and other Saudis were allowed to fly out of the country before air traffic was resumed after 9/11 and before they could be interviewed by the FBI. They left Sept. 14, when general air traffic again was allowed and after interviews by the FBI. Under the circumstances, if I were a Saudi, I would have wanted to leave, too.
Another slam at the administration concerns John Ashcroft's loss of his Senate seat in 2000 "to a dead man." Ashcroft was leading Mel Carnahan in polls until the plane crash that killed Carnahan and led to Carnahan's wife replacing him on the ballot. A large sympathy vote and a judge who kept the polls in St. Louis open two hours past normal closing helped the widow defeat Ashcroft. She lost the seat two years later. Another inaccuracy is Moore's assertion that the Bush administration has cut benefits and care for veterans. Spending for veterans has increased 8.97 percent a year on average in Bush's first three years, compared with 3.6 percent a year in Clinton's last three years.
Inconsistencies plague "Fahrenheit 9/11" and the hype surrounding its release. At root, they derive from the mixed genre of this film. Moore has made a career of political humor and attacks on the rich. He claims he doesn't have to be accurate; "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"
Then why consult lawyers to sue critics of the film? What happened to free speech there? Because we are now to assume that this time he's serious? There is ambivalence in his treatment of our soldiers in the field - sympathy for their hardship and losses versus portrayal of them as testosterone-enraged mindless killers. While he condemns the Patriot Act for potential intrusions into liberty, Moore criticizes Homeland Security for not doing enough to patrol our beaches and borders. While attacking Democrats in Congress as "weak-kneed and wimpy," he shows wounded soldiers who intend to vote Democratic. Moreover, we have no clue as to what he thinks would have been an appropriate response to 9/11. Did we do too much or not enough in Afghanistan?
What's good about this film? Several things. Moore uses music and humor very well. His inserting clips from Dragnet and morphing administration figures into the Bonanza intro are genuinely funny. More important, he raises issues that need to be raised, such as the validity of the rationale for the Iraqi war (does it meet the criteria of the Powell Doctrine?), the high human cost of fighting such a war (maiming and death), the recruitment of the poor to do the hard work, the size and distribution of profits from the war, and the efficacy of our Homeland Security efforts. These are the serious matters that could have been the foci of a really great documentary, but they are diminished in the welter of personal attacks and innuendos about Bush and his administration. Again, it's a political ad that runs way too long.
Several columnists have suggested that Moore does not need to be fair and balanced since his role is to provoke. Clearly under the First Amendment, they are right. But I wish someone with Mr. Moore's obvious talents could be simultaneously fair and balanced. I think I'd learn more. I really don't need my biases reinforced.
One shudders for the future of a political system that confuses entertainment with political discourse. Kathleen Hall Jamieson has noted that in the electronic age, we are subjected to associative logic that taps visceral reaction and emotion instead of rationality. Should our guts or our minds determine policy preferences?
While I certainly feel for Lila Lipscomb, the mother who lost her son in Iraq, I also note that she was a flag-waving soldier's mom who hated war protesters until her son was killed. Ms. Lipscomb moved from emotion for to emotion against. How much better if we could use some rational discourse on the pros and cons of policy before, not after, the fact. It might be easier to live with the consequences of rational conviction. Films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" aren't likely to help us reach that point.
I just drank a cup of Democratic Hate Soup cooked up by its new propaganda
chef, Michael Moore.
After watching his “Fahrenheit 9/11,” one has to have a certain admiration
for Michael Moore.
It takes a definite genius to be able to manipulate well-educated people.
Of course, I was shocked by Moore’s film and his blatant disregard for
truth.
But even more startling was the reaction I have heard this week from other
people who saw the “documentary” and who are Republicans, conservatives or
political moderates – but all well-educated.
All of them were overwhelmed by Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” and said they
already have decided to vote against Bush and for John Kerry. I count now about
a
dozen people that I would not have believed could be so affected, including
one of my doctors.
Clearly, the Republicans and supporters of George Bush must take this movie
with the utmost seriousness.
NewsMax predicted that this movie would be part of the media offensive
against Bush.
In NewsMax Magazine’s June cover story, “The Media War On Bush,” we
detailed the $2 billion – our estimate – that will be spent with “in
kind” media
coverage to defeat Bush this November.
This in-kind donation comes in the form of slanted nightly news coverage,
the print media, books and even Hollywood’s efforts.
We noted that Michael Moore’s film would be a major contribution for Kerry,
as it was being shown in theatres nationwide. Of the $2 billion media war
against Bush – which we believe to be a conservative estimate – we
calculated
that Michael Moore’s “documentary” would be an in-kind contribution of
approximately $20 million for the Kerry campaign.
As it turned out, that figure was way too conservative.
The Moore film raked in over $20 million on its opening day.
It is now evident that the Moore film will have a value of at least $250
million for the Kerry effort to win the White House.
Moore’s concoction of Hate Soup is being completely swallowed. This November
it will sway independent voters, completely energize the Democratic base –
and lead to increased donations to the Kerry coffers.
Moore’s Hate Soup can be countered, but only if we can regurgitate chunk by
chunk the propaganda that has been so willingly swallowed.
'The Real Intent'
Moore claims that this is a movie about Bush’s failure to handle the events
that led up to 9/11.
But the opening of the documentary reveals that his real intent was to
inflict as much political damage on Bush as possible.
He does so by having viewers relive his version of the 2000 election crisis
in an effort to show that George Bush a) is an illegitimate president and b)
stole the election from Al Gore.
I’m not sure what the election controversy has to do with Sept. 11.
But in discussing this event, Moore uses the same old arguments that somehow
Bush stole the election and squeaked through in Florida.
In a sequence of footage he shows news clips of the 2000 Election Night
where the major news anchors flip-flopped their prediction that Al Gore had won
Florida.
But he could just as easily have shown clips of the networks declaring Gore
the winner of Florida – an hour before all the polls in the state had closed.
As Republicans have pointed out, this had the effect of lowering Republican
turnout by as many as 50,000 votes in Florida’s Panhandle.
As it turned out, Bush won Florida by a squeaker – but there is little
dispute that had the media not acted deviously in calling the election early in
Florida, Bush would have won quite handily.
I might add that Moore could have noted that the major networks had been
asked not to call Florida before the polls closed – as they customarily do for
every other state – because it could skew the results.
But Moore did not even mention that issue. His intent is not to get to the
truth behind Sept. 11. It is instead to remind people that Bush is an
illegitimate president and to stir up Democratic ranks to come out on Election
Day.
’The Saudi Stuff’
My doctor pointed out to me that he was so bothered by “the Saudi stuff”
–
meaning the Bush family connections with the Saudi Arabians revealed by Moore
– he will not vote for Bush.
Moore claims that Bush never really held the Saudis accountable for their
ties to al-Qaida because of these “family connections.”
As I asked my doctor, “Why, then, are the Saudis trying to defeat Bush this
election year?”
He looked shocked. If the Saudis really wanted Bush re-elected this year,
gas would be selling for $1.25 a gallon today. Gasoline is still closer to $2 a
gallon – and even if the price drops, it will only marginally help Bush.
Clearly the Saudis could have made a major contribution to Bush by revving the
U.S.
economy this year with low oil prices.
The Saudi Arabians may like the Bush family on a personal level. But they
are clearly afraid of him and his national security team, which has held Saudi
Arabia accountable as never before.
Gone are the Clinton-Gore days when the Saudis could walk all over the
United States, pay lip service to us and give huge amounts of money to al-Qaida
front groups and other terrorists around the world.
Remember the Khobar Towers bombing? During the Clinton years, the Saudis
would not even cooperate with the FBI’s investigation.
The Saudis did not want Bush to be so vigorous in his war on terror. That is
clear.
But by showing a montage of pictures of George Bush and his father shaking
hands and smiling with Saudi princes, Moore tries to “prove” that somehow
the
relationship was improper.
The Moore “evidence” sounded like something out of a Lyndon Larouche
propaganda flyer: a photograph of the queen of England smiling with the
president of
the United States. Aha! This proves Larouche’s contention that the British
monarchy secretly controls the White House.
So much for conspiracy theories created out of “guilt by association”
techniques. Saudi Arabia is a major country in the Middle East and one of the
most
vitally important for the United States. It is smart and good politics for the
Bush family and other American leaders to have close and developing ties with
the Saudis.
Nor did I buy the claim that Michael Moore uncovered some huge smoking gun,
as he suggests in his film.
As it turned out, one of the men who served with George Bush in the National
Guard during the 1970s was James R. Bath.
Bath has gone on to have ties with the Saudi Arabians. So what? Moore also
implies that Bath funded George Bush’s business enterprises with Saudi money,
a
claim already categorically denied.
’9/11: Bush Did Nothing to Stop It’
It’s interesting that Michael Moore never focuses on the Clinton
administration’s culpability in Sept. 11.
The Sept. 11 Commission and other intelligence reports say that the plot to
bomb the World Trade Center began in the mid 1990s – as early as 1996.
During the same time, numerous U.S. targets were hit, with very little
retaliation from the U.S.
For five years the terrorists plotted, with many entering and training in
the U.S. during the period Bill Clinton was president.
Yet there is almost no discussion of this in Michael Moore’s film. Why?
On Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had been in office for less than eight months.
Anyone who knows how the federal government functions would know that the
president, in such a short time, would have limited influence over the
government and its policies.
For instance, only three political appointments had been made to the
Pentagon by Sept. 11; one of those was Donald Rumsfeld.
At the time of 9/11, most of the government was still staffed by the
appointments Bill Clinton had made – including at the CIA and FBI and almost
every
other federal agency. Certainly President Bush has some culpability in the
events of Sept. 11, but reasonable people should wonder why he receives all the
blame while his predecessors receive none.
’But Bush Knew They Were Going to Hijack Planes’
As the 9/11 Commission report has revealed, Bush was informed in a memo in
August 2001 that al-Qaida was intent on hitting targets within the U.S. and was
even considering hijacking planes.
Moore uses this information again as a smoking gun that Bush should have
done more and that somehow he should have taken steps to stop the hijackers.
Perhaps.
But I also have a feeling that the president gets warnings of this type –
some real, some not so real – every day.
Recently, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that a day did not go by
that his police commissioner or some other agency chief called him about a
potential threat to the city.
Obviously, almost all such threats never materialize. What was Bush supposed
to have done had he known there were potential hijackings under way?
He could have notified the public about that threat and every other threat
the U.S. gets.
Criticism of the administration since Sept. 11 has led the administration to
regularly reveal “chatter” that suggests threats.
Moore, of course, doesn’t applaud the administration for doing so. He
suggests in his film that the terror warnings are just an effort to scare and
manipulate the public.
In the Moorewellian world we live in, Bush is damned if he does and damned
if he doesn’t.
And the CIA intelligence report warning of hijackings never informed the
president that that terrorists were planning to use commercial jets as flying
bombs.
This was a significant failure of our intelligence agencies, particularly
the CIA and FBI, which failed to take into account available intelligence that
hijackers were preparing to attack the U.S. – and not alerting the president
to
previous intelligence showing that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups had
plotted to use jets as human flying bombs.
Had that possibility been mentioned in that August memo, I would agree that
Bush would be more culpable for not having been more proactive. But that
possibility was never mentioned, and I don’t believe it was Bush’s role
dream up
what the hijackers might do.
’Weapons of Mass Destruction’
The pretext of the war was that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.
primarily because he was developing weapons of mass destruction.
The U.S. cited some evidence that appears now to have been faulty. But what
is clear is that Saddam Hussein refused to abide by numerous U.N. resolutions
and treaty obligations he had signed that required full inspections.
Is it our fault that we held this rogue leader accountable to international
law?
Weapons of mass destruction include biological, chemical and nuclear
weapons. We now know that Saddam had a biological and chemical program and was
trying
to develop nuclear programs.
Can we fault the president for acting on the best of intentions? What would
have happened if Bush had not acted and five years later Saddam had killed
250,000 Americans with an anthrax attack?
Also missing from Moore’s film are the serious statements that Clinton and
many of his top officials made about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
In one warning, Clinton said that Saddam Hussein was developing such weapons
and that he could use them if he was not stopped.
Had Moore, in fairness, showed just one of these Clinton clips, the claims
of his “documentary” would have been eviscerated.
No, in Moore’s Hate Soup, Bill Clinton is not an ingredient.
’Blacks and the War’
Michael Moore is very clever.
He is working on behalf of the Democratic Party for this year’s election.
He offers some passing criticism of the Democrats, but he is still rooting
for them.
In his film, a maimed soldier from Iraq says that he’s voting Democrat this
year and doing everything he can to help the Democrats. (Funny, that’s what
Michael Moore’s also doing!)
Moore knows that the African-American constituency is a key component of the
Democratic Party. The Democrats need the African-American vote to win.
Typically, they’ve been getting 90 percent of the vote. But in a close
election, every percent counts. They can’t have blacks go off the reservation,
so
to speak – not this year.
So Moore cleverly begins his film with the Congressional Black Caucus’
efforts to stop the Electoral College procedures. (I am baffled as to what this
has
to do with Sept. 11.)
And again, Moore implies throughout his film that somehow young black men
are being used as cannon fodder for Bush’s war on terror. It is they, not
white
young people, being sent to Iraq to die.
Moore never makes this claim outright because he knows that statistical
evidence shows blacks are not dying in Iraq in any disproportionate number to
their percentage of the U.S. population. (A similar myth was created by the
media
during the Vietnam War. The statistics show that blacks died in Vietnam at
about the same percentage as their population.)
The clear impression from Moore is that Bush is an elitist white racist,
along with many congressmen who don’t have their sons or daughters in the U.S.
military.
Moore conveniently fails to note that a very large number of congressmen and
senators have served in the military and risked their lives for their
country.
He also fails to inform his audience that there is probably a very small
number of congressmen and senators with children of recruiting age.
On so many points and in so many ways, Michael Moore is extremely
manipulative.
I was shocked at the end of the film when people clapped thunderously. It
looked like an audience that was sophisticated and educated.
But they apparently don’t even know the basic facts of what’s happening in
the world today.
I do believe that the Bush administration made mistakes in the Iraq war.
Mistakes are made in all wars.
But I do not believe that Bush was wrong in going after Saddam Hussein or
had a malevolent intention – as Moore suggests.
The Real Michael Moore
I remember when I first watched Moore’s first blockbuster documentary,
“Roger and Me.”
I knew it had a liberal bias but I sort of liked Michael Moore.
How can you not like an average guy going against a corporate giant such as
GM’s chairman, Roger Smith?
It is human nature to like to see David take on Goliath.
So it is easy to understand the cheers as Moore takes on the president, vice
president and leadership of the country – and shows apparent hypocrisy.
I understand the positive reaction Moore’s film has received by many.
But who is Michael Moore?
When Michael Moore’s TV series (which turned out to be a very big flop) came
out in the 1980s, I tuned in.
I thought it would be as interesting as his “Roger and Me” documentary.
But instead of taking on the rich and powerful, the typical show
demonstrated time and time again Moore’s belief that the average American is
stupid,
ignorant, dumb.
It’s no contradiction that Moore went to Europe recently and said that
Americans were “stupid.”
In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” he hits a nerve again, because he takes on what
appear to be the rich and the powerful and the elite. But what he doesn’t
reveal is
that he hates the rest of us too.
Take, for example, the grieving mother in the film who lost her son in Iraq.
She talks of her love for Jesus and how she has relied on Him during this
period.
It was a touching moment, especially for anyone who is a Christian. But one
wonders why Moore would use that footage, because he is like a lot of other
liberal elitists who don’t exactly have a history of attending Billy Graham
crusades.
In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if his next documentary is about “Jesus
Freaks.”
So that’s the bottom line: Michael Moore is not interested in truth, he’s
interested in political action, achieving goals and manipulating people. He can
do “whatever it takes” to achieve the objectives.
It’s a dangerous pot of soup Michael Moore has concocted, and it is sad that
so many people haven’t discovered that it is a deceptive potion.
Comments
Dave, you write:
"It is manipulative and unfair. And very funny and surprisingly moving.Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't what I expected."
Your basically saying that this is a dishonest piece of work. And this is a position which I strongly disagree with. I'm sorry to have to invoke the name of Hitler, but if you went back to 1933, what kind of movie would you make to get people to wake up? How would you portray Hitler? I'm not equating Bush with Hitler, I'm simply saying that when you have millions of people who hold strong beliefs about a person, convincing them he is not who they think he is a very difficult task. What were Hitler's early misdeeds that could have been put on film in the service of this task? How would you convey the historical chain of events that unfolded that allowed such a man to seize power. How do you put it all in one film? Keep in mind that in making such a film, if you concentrate on only one or two misdeeds, and really get into the details necessary to do that you will have defeated your purpose in all likelihood. The movie will be too forensic and not many will be compelled to see it. You also have to make the movie funny.
Overall you have made a very poor case. I've read just about everything I've been able to find on this movie, from Christopher Hitchen's Slate article, to, well, your blog, and many people have expressed an opinion similar to your own, that the movie is unfair, unbalanced, etc. I saw the movie when it first came out, but after reading so many critical articles and postings around the web, I wanted to see it one more time more through the critical lens of those who have lambasted the movie for one thing or other.
Many have stated that Moore was dishonest in depicting the Bush administration's motives for invading Afghanistan. Did we invade Afghanistan so that Bush's and his cronies could lay pipe? No, but that was still on their minds. Hamid Karzai was hand picked as the president probably because of his connections to Unocal. Should you be worried that former president Bush is a consultant to the Carlyle group and considers the Saudis his "good friends"? Yes, you should be very worried about such things.
When you see this sort of stuff on the news it is hard for the average American to make sense of it if it is not put in to context. This is being generous, of course, because it usually doesn't make the news. How is one to judge whether it is proper for an ex-president to hold a position like the one Bush does in the Carlyle group? The practices of the bush family and people like Dick Cheney have been going on for so long, that they don't raise the alarm that they should. Certainly they have internalized the rationales for their shady dealings, but most shocking is that they have persuaded many others to do the same. How does this persuasion work? Simple. They just keep getting away with it. IT must be ok, it must be legal if they haven't been brought to court or prosecuted, right? Moore never said anything about conspiracies in this movie. The folks we have in power don't need conspiracies. They are far too brazen to need a conspiracy.
You state the movie was manipulative??? I think manipulative is an extremely poor choice of words, and you really don't cite examples to support this claim. It makes people uncomfortable to see bodies of children, or vets with limbs blown off or with permanent brain damage etc. Were you moved out of your comfort zone when you saw these images? Did you feel something that made you didn't want to feel? Or did you rationalize your response? I think you did the later because here is what you wrote:
"Although the footage from Iraq is raw and awful, similar footage could be found from every war, just and unjust. And a mother's grief ? Iraqi or American ? is not an argument against the war, although it may be an argument against all wars."
Who are you to say that a mother's grief is not an argument against a particular war? You do allow that it might be an argument against "all wars", but if that is so, how could it not be an argument against a particular war? Upon what criteria do you judge the validity of an argument against war anyway? What supercilious, condescending arrogance. Please tell us Dave what the reasons for going to war should be. Your comment is an affront to all mothers.
Your comment about war simply doesn't make any sense to me. All wars, good and bad (whatever that means) kill people, but Moore is saying this war is bad (which seems to be a position you agree with I suspect). He is saying " look, this is what we are doing to these people, we're blowing their kids to bits for this horrid lie." It never hurts when the tally of the dead is just a number: 26,000 killed, 6,000,000 murdered--human beings as atomistic parts. It's nice, clean, abstract, unemotional. Show one dead child, one grieving widow, be instantly accused of sensationalism. Move out of your fucking comfort zone Dave if you hate this war, if you hate this president, and do something about it besides attack the one person who has truly made a difference.
Posted by: daniel luke | July 3, 2004 02:43 PM
Daniel, I did not say that this is a dishonest piece of work. I said that it is unfair in that it doesn't attempt to present a balanced point of view. And I applauded it for that.
Here's why a mother's grief isn't an argument against a particular war but may be an argument against all wars. In every war, just or unjust, mothers (and fathers) grieve for their children. So, you can't put a grieving parent on film and say, "See, this war is wrong?" because you could do that whether the war is the (IMO) justifiable war against the Nazis or the (IMO) unjustifiable Iraqi war. So, to argue that a war is unjust, you can't simply say "War kills people and their parents will grieve." But it _is_ an argument against all wars because it supports the idea that all wars - which, necessarily, kill people - cause too much suffering to be worthwhile.
I think 9/11 is a terrific but not unflawed movie. I hope everyone sees it.
Posted by: David Weinberger | July 3, 2004 04:59 PM
"I said that it is unfair in that it doesn't attempt to present a balanced point of view." Yes, and you also said it was manipulative. For which you provided no supporting evidence. I ask you, how do you go about presenting a balanced point of view in the case of Bush? If you were going to present a "balanaced point of view" of what Hitler did, how would you go about doing that? If someone lies to you, and you tell everyone that that person is a liar, are you being unfair? Of course not. Telling the truth about a liar is not being unfair. In fact, you are doing a service.
You believe that the 2nd WW was justitified. OK, were we unfair to Hitler's regime, was it wrong for the American press to not have put Hitler, for the sake of balance and fairness, at least a time or two, in a more positive light? I submitt that the concept of fairness certainly in this case is not even a concept worth considering. By suggesting that the crimes of Bush must be given fair treatment, you are giving legitimacy to those very crimes. When a leader lies to the people, and tens of thousands of people die horrible deaths including many innocent children, you know what you do, Dave? You take to the fucking streets. You work night and day doing whatever you possibly can to correct it. If you lose the fight, so be it, but it should not be on your conscience you just stood by and let it happen.
"I think 9/11 is a terrific but not unflawed movie. I hope everyone sees it."
This, unfortunately is not so much what you dwell on in your piece. You seem eager to let people know how flawed, unfair, and imbalanced it is, (while providing virtually no evidence for these views). How 'bout a few lines on how you felt when you saw Bush sit around and do nothing while people were being incinerated? Did you wonder how many millions of lives may have been lost, if instead of airplanes flying in to builidings Bush sat on his hands while nuclear missles were heading our way? How 'bout the fact that although politicians were overwhelmingly in favor of this war, all but one has a child in Iraq? How 'bout the fact that poor, under-privledged minorities are who the recruiters go after, hardly ever visiting wealthy neighborhoods? You should have expounded on these points a bit more.
The left has been shockingly critical of this movie, and I've had to try to understand why this is. My theory is that Michael Moore has made people feel profoundly uncomfortable. Not even so much in the depiction of Bush as a moron, or showing the innocent dead. It's the idea that if Bush is really as bad as he is depicted in the movie, then why haven't been doing anything? Why haven't we taken to the streets? Why haven't we written a critical article about the Bush administration? Whatever. It's much easier to believe that Bush is not nearly as bad as he is depicted, that Moore went overboard, and wound up being unfair, etc. In other words we want to pretend that it's ok to continue to be complacent. Well Dave, it's not OK anymore to be complacent, to expect others to do the work of getting people registered to vote, to hand out flyers in the street, to speak out.
Anyway, the truth is that Moore didn't chronicle even 25% of what Bush is responsible for. Whatever impression of Bush you are left with after seeing the film, he's actually much worse. Moore's major sin is actually one of ommission, not commision. But if he tried to address the war on black America, the phony drug war, the privitazation of social security, the recent gift to pharmaceuticals, the staggering environmental degradation Bush is responsible for, the undermining of the public school system, the lifting of the barrier between church and state, he wouldn't have had enough time.
So that we don't have anymore grieving mothers trying to use their dead children as an argument against this specific war, what do you plan to do to defeat Bush? When are you going to do it?
Posted by: daniel luke | July 3, 2004 10:10 PM
Daniel, again: I said that its being non-balanced is a good thing.
As for your personal attacks about when I am going to do something to defeat Bush: Why do you assume that I've done nothing and am doing nothing? I don't expect you, or anyone, to have read what I've written before (some of which talks about my political activity). But, since you don't know anything about me, why would you assume - based on the fact that while I liked F9/11, I didn't like it as uncritically as you do - that you're the only one in this discussion who is politically active? Or that you're the only one who cares about the poor and oppressed of the world. Jeez. If I may quote from your first post, that's arrogant and condescending. It's also factually wrong.
Posted by: David Weinberger | July 4, 2004 08:46 AM
The idea of balance in the case of criminal Bush (something which I have already devoted sufficient time in explaining in my last post), is not a matter worth considering. Please acknowledge this! Anyway, if you think Moore was unbalanced, you should have supported your argument better. That's all.
Look, we're basically on the same team (which is what I think you're trying to say to me). I'm sure that you want Bush defeated as badly as I do. All I'm saying to you is go for the jugular. Stop worrying about whether your piece will be perceived as being balanced. The left is always to some extent at a tactical disadvantage because it attracts people who think critically about issues. No one gets a pass, not even Michael Moore. Fine. I understand this. But I think many on the left have actually used Moore's latest work to reinforce their reputation for being fair, and in the process have themselves gone a bit overboard. In all of the pieces I've read, the arguments critical of Moore's latest work are as weak and sloppy as Moore's film is purported to be. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you found the film to be in factual error state precisely why. If you found the film to be manipulative, state precisely why. If you don't support your assersions, don't expect them to go unchallenged.
Certainly in our exchange you may have sensed a bit of my anger. I think people need to let their passions flow a bit, and put aside, for a moment, their polite sensibilities. Just as you may feel that war is sometimes a necessary evil, well, so is anger. The gloves are off this time Dave, and I for one am not taking it lying down anymore. The more we are able to show a united front, the better our chances for victory.
Lastly, I am not assuming you are not doing anything. And you're right that such an assumption would be arrogant and condescending. I merely asked what you are doing and when you plan to do it. In all fairness, I accept the possibility that you may already have done much more than I have. I read your blog, I think I have a good idea how you feel about things. I'm sure most people care about the poor and oppressed, and that is one thing that gives me encouragement that together Bush can be defeated. We must all take action and stick together.
Posted by: daniel luke | July 4, 2004 03:59 PM
Daniel, Your first paragraph says that I need to support the view that 9/11 is unbalanced. As my review said, Moore himself acknowledged that. And my review explained what I meant adquately: He doesn't bother presenting the other side. Do you really need me to argue the fact that Bush's minions don't get equal time on screen? Or, if you're angry because you think I'm saying that unbalanced is bad, then let me threepeat for you: my review says it's GOOD that he didn't bother about balance. I don't know how to make this any clearer.
As for manipulative: I did not spell out my argument because it's too obvious to need spelling out. Moore repeatedly plays on our emotions, sometimes in lieu of making a good argument and sometimes to rouse us to action. My review talks about examples of each. You may not like it when someone is even moderately analytic about the movie, but, well, tough.
As for my proving to you what I'm doing to defeat Bush: Frankly, go to hell. You have no right to demand an accounting from me and you're not going to get one.
I also don't need a lecture from you about the value of passion.
Finally, take a look at what you're doing, Daniel. You're calling for all of us to drop our petty disagreements and rally together to defeat Bush. I agree 100%. Yet your manner of rallying us together is to find someone with whom you disagree about a movie -- and it's a disagreement only about how much we like it, with me giving it a 9 our of 11 and you giving it a 12 out of 11 -- and to jump down my throat, calling me names, accusing me of doing nothing, screeching at me about how I need to care more about the poor and the oppressed the way you do. Is that your idea of rallying together?
Posted by: David Weinberger | July 4, 2004 04:13 PM
"Daniel, Your first paragraph says that I need to support the view that 9/11 is unbalanced."
No, that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that when someone is a liar, thief and murderer, the idea of fairness and balance is out of the question, and the very act of trying to be fair and balanced gives that person or thing legitimacy--which is exactly what your piece does, however unwittingly. As long as Moore's movie is not presenting lies, which it isn't, it is as balanced as it needs to be, in fact as it can be.
"As for my proving to you what I'm doing to defeat Bush: Frankly, go to hell. You have no right to demand an accounting from me and you're not going to get one."
I'm not demanding anything of you Dave. It was meant to be rhetorical. Furthermore, I have not launched an ad hominem attack against you as you claim. Although by saying that a mother's grief is not an argument against war, I think you have betrayed some insensitivity. Perhaps arrogance was not the proper choice of words. Besides, when you write an article that has wide dissemination, and then you post a link to it on your blog because you're proud of it, to some degree you are a fair target. You should expect that you might be subjected to harsh criticism.
I hope you are as angry at Bush as you appear to be at me. I do sincerely hope you direct it in a constructive fashion to defeat Bush.
Anyway, I don't even believe in hell.
"Finally, take a look at what you're doing, Daniel. You're calling for all of us to drop our petty disagreements and rally together to defeat Bush. I agree 100%. Yet your manner of rallying us together is to find someone with whom you disagree about a movie -- and it's a disagreement only about how much we like it, with me giving it a 9 our of 11 and you giving it a 12 out of 11 -- and to jump down my throat, calling me names, accusing me of doing nothing, screeching at me about how I need to care more about the poor and the oppressed the way you do. Is that your idea of rallying together?"
Again the facts Dave. Your last paragraph makes a fairly valid point, but your facts are wrong. Nowhere have I accused you of doing nothing. In fact I allow for the possibility that you have done more than I have! I say nothing about how you need to care more about the oppressed or anything even remotely close to that. In making an argument, the facts matter a great deal.
Posted by: daniel luke | July 4, 2004 05:11 PM
if anyone actually belives that Fahrenheit 9/11 is factual, they are a fool. If Clinton were bush, doing the exact same thing, and Fahrenheit 9/11 were released about clinton, you would all have the exact opposite opinion. And for the rest of you that believe that this evil man (whos power rose form the remnants of the Nazi regime) really would destroy millions of dollars in WMD's you are truly ignorant people. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and everyone was quick to point out a scene witha charred baby which the US has obviosuly killed - I can find many many more of those that saddam gassed not long ago. How many children were killed in WWII bombings and I wonder why no one was bitching then. Frankly, the first Bsh made a mess in Iraq and caused thousands to be slautered when we left and we have responsibility to clean that up! I know most would love to kiss these peoples asses, but nothing short of war could ever have fixed this. I wish we could stick the french over in the middle east for a few years and see how many days (or hours) it takes for them to beg for help. I'm a democrat, and I hate to say it, but I'll be voting for bush this time around.
Posted by: Scott | July 5, 2004 06:42 PM
Scott, please state where the movie is in factual error.
Secondly, strong evidence has recently come out that it was the Iranians, and not Sadam's regime that gassed the Kurds.
I had no idea that someone as profoundly ill informed as you would be reading this blog. I don't know what to make of it frankly.
Where do you get your information? What books do you read???
Posted by: daniel luke | July 6, 2004 01:34 AM
Scott and Daniel, please do not insult other commenters on this site. Disagree as much as you want, but no name-calling.
Daniel, on a separate topic, could you please provide a link to the evidence that the Iranians gassed the Kurds. I've never heard that before.
Posted by: David Weinberger | July 6, 2004 09:37 AM
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-01.htm
Posted by: daniel luke | July 6, 2004 12:34 PM
here are some pictures - http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
Posted by: SSC | July 6, 2004 03:29 PM
No one is calling anyone names, at least I'm not, but if you immediately believe anything you see in a theater (or CNN or FOX news for that matter) you are a fool. Granted, people are more ready to believe in scandals and conspiracies rather than admit that both sides might be partially correct!
War is never a good answer but in many cases, it is a necessary evil. I wonder how many innocent would have been tortured and killed if we had waited to go into Iraq - no one will ever know! I do know that this man was evil and hated us to a point where he would do everything he could to destoy us. If there is horde of deadly snakes in my backyard that is threatening my children and family I'm sure as hell gonna kill em.
Iraq and Nazi connection... http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/20/145726.shtml
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/al-queda-terrorists-nazi-connection.html
www.cdn -friends- icej.ca/antiholo/arabnazi.html
Fahrenheit 9 11 debunked
http://www.nightly.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/39/304.html?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2004 03:51 PM
Did flights take bin Laden family members out of the U.S. over the objections of the FBI?
It's hard to make the case that flights of Saudis departed from the U.S. over the objections of the FBI when, according to former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, the FBI itself gave the go-ahead
he told Vanity Fair magazine.
Mr Clarke said he checked with FBI officials, who gave the go ahead. "So I said, 'Fine, let it happen'."6
And, as noted, the FBI was directly involved in the process of collecting bin Laden family members and ferrying them to departure points from which they could leave the country:
The young members of the bin Laden clan were driven or flown under F.B.I. supervision to a secret assembly point in Texas.3
So, in the end, it was Richard Clarke who gave final approval for the exit of the Saudis and the bin Ladens to leave.
Posted by: Scott | July 6, 2004 03:53 PM
Describing Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a challenge because one has the feeling that in this big mess of a film, there could have been a good documentary. Instead, the partisanship of Hollywood's superannuated enfant terrible produces a two-hour political ad. And most of us can barely stand 30-second spots.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" suffers from distortions, inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Major distortions include the film's portrayal of Iraq as a paradise for children and women before the Americans came, which is belied by the killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis under Saddam, his sponsorship of terrorism in Israel, etc. Another is the leap from the Bush family's oil ties to the Saudis and the Carlyle Group to an implication that the Bush administration made war on Iraq simply to get more oil and business for Halliburton. In fact, the Saudis opposed our initiation of this war, and George H. W. Bush had killed an $11 billion artillery rocket system developed by Carlyle subsidiary United Defense. Moore's implied conspiracy theory interprets facts and makes connections in much the same way as do right-wing Trilateral Commission opponents. Maybe the distance between far right and far left isn't so very far.
Inaccuracies also abound. The 9/11 Commission itself has debunked assertions that bin Ladens and other Saudis were allowed to fly out of the country before air traffic was resumed after 9/11 and before they could be interviewed by the FBI. They left Sept. 14, when general air traffic again was allowed and after interviews by the FBI. Under the circumstances, if I were a Saudi, I would have wanted to leave, too.
Another slam at the administration concerns John Ashcroft's loss of his Senate seat in 2000 "to a dead man." Ashcroft was leading Mel Carnahan in polls until the plane crash that killed Carnahan and led to Carnahan's wife replacing him on the ballot. A large sympathy vote and a judge who kept the polls in St. Louis open two hours past normal closing helped the widow defeat Ashcroft. She lost the seat two years later. Another inaccuracy is Moore's assertion that the Bush administration has cut benefits and care for veterans. Spending for veterans has increased 8.97 percent a year on average in Bush's first three years, compared with 3.6 percent a year in Clinton's last three years.
Inconsistencies plague "Fahrenheit 9/11" and the hype surrounding its release. At root, they derive from the mixed genre of this film. Moore has made a career of political humor and attacks on the rich. He claims he doesn't have to be accurate; "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"
Then why consult lawyers to sue critics of the film? What happened to free speech there? Because we are now to assume that this time he's serious? There is ambivalence in his treatment of our soldiers in the field - sympathy for their hardship and losses versus portrayal of them as testosterone-enraged mindless killers. While he condemns the Patriot Act for potential intrusions into liberty, Moore criticizes Homeland Security for not doing enough to patrol our beaches and borders. While attacking Democrats in Congress as "weak-kneed and wimpy," he shows wounded soldiers who intend to vote Democratic. Moreover, we have no clue as to what he thinks would have been an appropriate response to 9/11. Did we do too much or not enough in Afghanistan?
What's good about this film? Several things. Moore uses music and humor very well. His inserting clips from Dragnet and morphing administration figures into the Bonanza intro are genuinely funny. More important, he raises issues that need to be raised, such as the validity of the rationale for the Iraqi war (does it meet the criteria of the Powell Doctrine?), the high human cost of fighting such a war (maiming and death), the recruitment of the poor to do the hard work, the size and distribution of profits from the war, and the efficacy of our Homeland Security efforts. These are the serious matters that could have been the foci of a really great documentary, but they are diminished in the welter of personal attacks and innuendos about Bush and his administration. Again, it's a political ad that runs way too long.
Several columnists have suggested that Moore does not need to be fair and balanced since his role is to provoke. Clearly under the First Amendment, they are right. But I wish someone with Mr. Moore's obvious talents could be simultaneously fair and balanced. I think I'd learn more. I really don't need my biases reinforced.
One shudders for the future of a political system that confuses entertainment with political discourse. Kathleen Hall Jamieson has noted that in the electronic age, we are subjected to associative logic that taps visceral reaction and emotion instead of rationality. Should our guts or our minds determine policy preferences?
While I certainly feel for Lila Lipscomb, the mother who lost her son in Iraq, I also note that she was a flag-waving soldier's mom who hated war protesters until her son was killed. Ms. Lipscomb moved from emotion for to emotion against. How much better if we could use some rational discourse on the pros and cons of policy before, not after, the fact. It might be easier to live with the consequences of rational conviction. Films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" aren't likely to help us reach that point.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2004 04:00 PM
I just drank a cup of Democratic Hate Soup cooked up by its new propaganda
chef, Michael Moore.
After watching his “Fahrenheit 9/11,” one has to have a certain admiration
for Michael Moore.
It takes a definite genius to be able to manipulate well-educated people.
Of course, I was shocked by Moore’s film and his blatant disregard for
truth.
But even more startling was the reaction I have heard this week from other
people who saw the “documentary” and who are Republicans, conservatives or
political moderates – but all well-educated.
All of them were overwhelmed by Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” and said they
already have decided to vote against Bush and for John Kerry. I count now about
a
dozen people that I would not have believed could be so affected, including
one of my doctors.
Clearly, the Republicans and supporters of George Bush must take this movie
with the utmost seriousness.
NewsMax predicted that this movie would be part of the media offensive
against Bush.
In NewsMax Magazine’s June cover story, “The Media War On Bush,” we
detailed the $2 billion – our estimate – that will be spent with “in
kind” media
coverage to defeat Bush this November.
This in-kind donation comes in the form of slanted nightly news coverage,
the print media, books and even Hollywood’s efforts.
We noted that Michael Moore’s film would be a major contribution for Kerry,
as it was being shown in theatres nationwide. Of the $2 billion media war
against Bush – which we believe to be a conservative estimate – we
calculated
that Michael Moore’s “documentary” would be an in-kind contribution of
approximately $20 million for the Kerry campaign.
As it turned out, that figure was way too conservative.
The Moore film raked in over $20 million on its opening day.
It is now evident that the Moore film will have a value of at least $250
million for the Kerry effort to win the White House.
Moore’s concoction of Hate Soup is being completely swallowed. This November
it will sway independent voters, completely energize the Democratic base –
and lead to increased donations to the Kerry coffers.
Moore’s Hate Soup can be countered, but only if we can regurgitate chunk by
chunk the propaganda that has been so willingly swallowed.
'The Real Intent'
Moore claims that this is a movie about Bush’s failure to handle the events
that led up to 9/11.
But the opening of the documentary reveals that his real intent was to
inflict as much political damage on Bush as possible.
He does so by having viewers relive his version of the 2000 election crisis
in an effort to show that George Bush a) is an illegitimate president and b)
stole the election from Al Gore.
I’m not sure what the election controversy has to do with Sept. 11.
But in discussing this event, Moore uses the same old arguments that somehow
Bush stole the election and squeaked through in Florida.
In a sequence of footage he shows news clips of the 2000 Election Night
where the major news anchors flip-flopped their prediction that Al Gore had won
Florida.
But he could just as easily have shown clips of the networks declaring Gore
the winner of Florida – an hour before all the polls in the state had closed.
As Republicans have pointed out, this had the effect of lowering Republican
turnout by as many as 50,000 votes in Florida’s Panhandle.
As it turned out, Bush won Florida by a squeaker – but there is little
dispute that had the media not acted deviously in calling the election early in
Florida, Bush would have won quite handily.
I might add that Moore could have noted that the major networks had been
asked not to call Florida before the polls closed – as they customarily do for
every other state – because it could skew the results.
But Moore did not even mention that issue. His intent is not to get to the
truth behind Sept. 11. It is instead to remind people that Bush is an
illegitimate president and to stir up Democratic ranks to come out on Election
Day.
’The Saudi Stuff’
My doctor pointed out to me that he was so bothered by “the Saudi stuff”
–
meaning the Bush family connections with the Saudi Arabians revealed by Moore
– he will not vote for Bush.
Moore claims that Bush never really held the Saudis accountable for their
ties to al-Qaida because of these “family connections.”
As I asked my doctor, “Why, then, are the Saudis trying to defeat Bush this
election year?”
He looked shocked. If the Saudis really wanted Bush re-elected this year,
gas would be selling for $1.25 a gallon today. Gasoline is still closer to $2 a
gallon – and even if the price drops, it will only marginally help Bush.
Clearly the Saudis could have made a major contribution to Bush by revving the
U.S.
economy this year with low oil prices.
The Saudi Arabians may like the Bush family on a personal level. But they
are clearly afraid of him and his national security team, which has held Saudi
Arabia accountable as never before.
Gone are the Clinton-Gore days when the Saudis could walk all over the
United States, pay lip service to us and give huge amounts of money to al-Qaida
front groups and other terrorists around the world.
Remember the Khobar Towers bombing? During the Clinton years, the Saudis
would not even cooperate with the FBI’s investigation.
The Saudis did not want Bush to be so vigorous in his war on terror. That is
clear.
But by showing a montage of pictures of George Bush and his father shaking
hands and smiling with Saudi princes, Moore tries to “prove” that somehow
the
relationship was improper.
The Moore “evidence” sounded like something out of a Lyndon Larouche
propaganda flyer: a photograph of the queen of England smiling with the
president of
the United States. Aha! This proves Larouche’s contention that the British
monarchy secretly controls the White House.
So much for conspiracy theories created out of “guilt by association”
techniques. Saudi Arabia is a major country in the Middle East and one of the
most
vitally important for the United States. It is smart and good politics for the
Bush family and other American leaders to have close and developing ties with
the Saudis.
Nor did I buy the claim that Michael Moore uncovered some huge smoking gun,
as he suggests in his film.
As it turned out, one of the men who served with George Bush in the National
Guard during the 1970s was James R. Bath.
Bath has gone on to have ties with the Saudi Arabians. So what? Moore also
implies that Bath funded George Bush’s business enterprises with Saudi money,
a
claim already categorically denied.
’9/11: Bush Did Nothing to Stop It’
It’s interesting that Michael Moore never focuses on the Clinton
administration’s culpability in Sept. 11.
The Sept. 11 Commission and other intelligence reports say that the plot to
bomb the World Trade Center began in the mid 1990s – as early as 1996.
During the same time, numerous U.S. targets were hit, with very little
retaliation from the U.S.
For five years the terrorists plotted, with many entering and training in
the U.S. during the period Bill Clinton was president.
Yet there is almost no discussion of this in Michael Moore’s film. Why?
On Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had been in office for less than eight months.
Anyone who knows how the federal government functions would know that the
president, in such a short time, would have limited influence over the
government and its policies.
For instance, only three political appointments had been made to the
Pentagon by Sept. 11; one of those was Donald Rumsfeld.
At the time of 9/11, most of the government was still staffed by the
appointments Bill Clinton had made – including at the CIA and FBI and almost
every
other federal agency. Certainly President Bush has some culpability in the
events of Sept. 11, but reasonable people should wonder why he receives all the
blame while his predecessors receive none.
’But Bush Knew They Were Going to Hijack Planes’
As the 9/11 Commission report has revealed, Bush was informed in a memo in
August 2001 that al-Qaida was intent on hitting targets within the U.S. and was
even considering hijacking planes.
Moore uses this information again as a smoking gun that Bush should have
done more and that somehow he should have taken steps to stop the hijackers.
Perhaps.
But I also have a feeling that the president gets warnings of this type –
some real, some not so real – every day.
Recently, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that a day did not go by
that his police commissioner or some other agency chief called him about a
potential threat to the city.
Obviously, almost all such threats never materialize. What was Bush supposed
to have done had he known there were potential hijackings under way?
He could have notified the public about that threat and every other threat
the U.S. gets.
Criticism of the administration since Sept. 11 has led the administration to
regularly reveal “chatter” that suggests threats.
Moore, of course, doesn’t applaud the administration for doing so. He
suggests in his film that the terror warnings are just an effort to scare and
manipulate the public.
In the Moorewellian world we live in, Bush is damned if he does and damned
if he doesn’t.
And the CIA intelligence report warning of hijackings never informed the
president that that terrorists were planning to use commercial jets as flying
bombs.
This was a significant failure of our intelligence agencies, particularly
the CIA and FBI, which failed to take into account available intelligence that
hijackers were preparing to attack the U.S. – and not alerting the president
to
previous intelligence showing that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups had
plotted to use jets as human flying bombs.
Had that possibility been mentioned in that August memo, I would agree that
Bush would be more culpable for not having been more proactive. But that
possibility was never mentioned, and I don’t believe it was Bush’s role
dream up
what the hijackers might do.
’Weapons of Mass Destruction’
The pretext of the war was that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.
primarily because he was developing weapons of mass destruction.
The U.S. cited some evidence that appears now to have been faulty. But what
is clear is that Saddam Hussein refused to abide by numerous U.N. resolutions
and treaty obligations he had signed that required full inspections.
Is it our fault that we held this rogue leader accountable to international
law?
Weapons of mass destruction include biological, chemical and nuclear
weapons. We now know that Saddam had a biological and chemical program and was
trying
to develop nuclear programs.
Can we fault the president for acting on the best of intentions? What would
have happened if Bush had not acted and five years later Saddam had killed
250,000 Americans with an anthrax attack?
Also missing from Moore’s film are the serious statements that Clinton and
many of his top officials made about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
In one warning, Clinton said that Saddam Hussein was developing such weapons
and that he could use them if he was not stopped.
Had Moore, in fairness, showed just one of these Clinton clips, the claims
of his “documentary” would have been eviscerated.
No, in Moore’s Hate Soup, Bill Clinton is not an ingredient.
’Blacks and the War’
Michael Moore is very clever.
He is working on behalf of the Democratic Party for this year’s election.
He offers some passing criticism of the Democrats, but he is still rooting
for them.
In his film, a maimed soldier from Iraq says that he’s voting Democrat this
year and doing everything he can to help the Democrats. (Funny, that’s what
Michael Moore’s also doing!)
Moore knows that the African-American constituency is a key component of the
Democratic Party. The Democrats need the African-American vote to win.
Typically, they’ve been getting 90 percent of the vote. But in a close
election, every percent counts. They can’t have blacks go off the reservation,
so
to speak – not this year.
So Moore cleverly begins his film with the Congressional Black Caucus’
efforts to stop the Electoral College procedures. (I am baffled as to what this
has
to do with Sept. 11.)
And again, Moore implies throughout his film that somehow young black men
are being used as cannon fodder for Bush’s war on terror. It is they, not
white
young people, being sent to Iraq to die.
Moore never makes this claim outright because he knows that statistical
evidence shows blacks are not dying in Iraq in any disproportionate number to
their percentage of the U.S. population. (A similar myth was created by the
media
during the Vietnam War. The statistics show that blacks died in Vietnam at
about the same percentage as their population.)
The clear impression from Moore is that Bush is an elitist white racist,
along with many congressmen who don’t have their sons or daughters in the U.S.
military.
Moore conveniently fails to note that a very large number of congressmen and
senators have served in the military and risked their lives for their
country.
He also fails to inform his audience that there is probably a very small
number of congressmen and senators with children of recruiting age.
On so many points and in so many ways, Michael Moore is extremely
manipulative.
I was shocked at the end of the film when people clapped thunderously. It
looked like an audience that was sophisticated and educated.
But they apparently don’t even know the basic facts of what’s happening in
the world today.
I do believe that the Bush administration made mistakes in the Iraq war.
Mistakes are made in all wars.
But I do not believe that Bush was wrong in going after Saddam Hussein or
had a malevolent intention – as Moore suggests.
The Real Michael Moore
I remember when I first watched Moore’s first blockbuster documentary,
“Roger and Me.”
I knew it had a liberal bias but I sort of liked Michael Moore.
How can you not like an average guy going against a corporate giant such as
GM’s chairman, Roger Smith?
It is human nature to like to see David take on Goliath.
So it is easy to understand the cheers as Moore takes on the president, vice
president and leadership of the country – and shows apparent hypocrisy.
I understand the positive reaction Moore’s film has received by many.
But who is Michael Moore?
When Michael Moore’s TV series (which turned out to be a very big flop) came
out in the 1980s, I tuned in.
I thought it would be as interesting as his “Roger and Me” documentary.
But instead of taking on the rich and powerful, the typical show
demonstrated time and time again Moore’s belief that the average American is
stupid,
ignorant, dumb.
It’s no contradiction that Moore went to Europe recently and said that
Americans were “stupid.”
In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” he hits a nerve again, because he takes on what
appear to be the rich and the powerful and the elite. But what he doesn’t
reveal is
that he hates the rest of us too.
Take, for example, the grieving mother in the film who lost her son in Iraq.
She talks of her love for Jesus and how she has relied on Him during this
period.
It was a touching moment, especially for anyone who is a Christian. But one
wonders why Moore would use that footage, because he is like a lot of other
liberal elitists who don’t exactly have a history of attending Billy Graham
crusades.
In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if his next documentary is about “Jesus
Freaks.”
So that’s the bottom line: Michael Moore is not interested in truth, he’s
interested in political action, achieving goals and manipulating people. He can
do “whatever it takes” to achieve the objectives.
It’s a dangerous pot of soup Michael Moore has concocted, and it is sad that
so many people haven’t discovered that it is a deceptive potion.
Posted by: sata | July 7, 2004 11:33 PM