|
I just watched Fahrenheit 911 (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Swamper
People like to think they are informed, when in reality they barely touch the surface. It's like following the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a few months and thinking you know what is going on meanwhile you don't know any of the history behind it. |
Very true. in fact, you can never be informed enough. Very few people know everything, there's a lot of facts that a normal person just cannot get. Like for example intelligence and things politicians just cannot say to the public.
so that makes an interesting question, is democracy really something that makes everyone in society decide? or is it just a way to keep the system from being *too* corrupt? i mean, everyone just votes from their (mostly) simple knowledge (which is 100% biased at some direction depending on where in the world you live, what family you were brought up in etc), and your feelings.
| quote: | Democracy, in theory, gives 'everyone' a voice - but some voices are much more influential than others...
Why do so few people vote? They feel their voice is not important - AND/OR - they don't want to spend any time informing themselves because it is just easier to have someone else do the homework for them. |
true. and your solution is? :p |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
Dale Earnhardt Jr. says to go see it on Fox TV.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_06_...837211623545104
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1161245/posts
| quote: |
Verbatim from Chris Myers (Fox Sports announcer) on today's race at Pomona pre-race program..
"You think you know Dale Earnhardt Jr.? He advised his crew to go see the Michael Moore movie Farenheit 911. He said hey, it'll be a good bonding experience no matter what your political belief. It's a good thing as an American to go see... and it just shows you that Dale Earnhardt Jr. can reach far beyond the steering wheel."
(thanks to chris/tx in comments)
-Atrios 5:33 PM |
This just shows that you shouldn't stereotype people.
Actually I have a little place in my heart for redneck sports. I used to watch Monster Truck racing on The Nashville Network every Saturday when I was a kid. :haha: |
|
|
| PhloTron |
| I spent my 8 bucks on Dodgeball....seeing Lance Armstrong, Shatner, and Chuck Norris in Cameos makes me feel much better than watching something that's already in the news everyday. |
|
|
| TRANCEEEE |
| quote: | Originally posted by emander
I think the movie is just a commercial to try and get people not to vote Bush! I also think Moore is a pathethic liar and bag of . |
ure a fuking **** |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by biodigit
Did you even read what i said in my previous post? |
I did read your post, maybe you didn't read mine. You said that the left's voice has been missing since "the administration took the office." Over the past two years we have had the war commission, daily commentary on the strife in Iraq and the shoddy evidence for going to war all broadcast through the mainstream media. I see absolutely no lack of viewpoints critical of the Bush administration. In fact, I would say that today's media is completely flooded with anti-War and Bush overtones. Whereas at the beginning of the war the media may have been sympathetic to the war effort (who wasn't at that time, especially fresh after the World Trade Center incident), over the past two or more years, I think that the exact opposite has been the case, culminating with the release of this movie.
| quote: | | And lastly, why don't you go see the movie yourself and see EXACTLY what i'm talking about in particular what we didn't get to see. |
I have seen two of his previous movies and read one of his books. If I want to be lied to and watch facts being manipulated I've learned that can be done for free and by people who are much more skilled at it. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
problem with michael moore is all he did was cut and edit most interviews...paste video edits
all to portray his view and cast the other side in dark light
ex: he cut out an interview with a congressman when he responded he did indeed have 2 nephews in the army fighting.
Movie is full of fiction and flaws beyond most people's comprehension.
Watching a movie does not inform people of anything truthful....only bias and opinions |
That seems to be the general opinion of Moore opponents who refuse to watch the movie:rolleyes:
What those people don't realize is that intertwined with all these "fiction and flaws" are actually indisputable truths regarding our present administration. If you choose to ignore the forests for the occasional fake tree, that's you're choice, but that doesn't take away from the existance of the forest.
| quote: | Originally Posted by Swamper
Why do so few people vote? They feel their voice is not important - AND/OR - they don't want to spend any time informing themselves because it is just easier to have someone else do the homework for them. |
I once read a quote: "People in a democracy get the government they deserve";) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
That seems to be the general opinion of Moore opponents who refuse to watch the movie:rolleyes:
What those people don't realize is that intertwined with all these "fiction and flaws" are actually indisputable truths regarding our present administration. If you choose to ignore the forests for the occasional fake tree, that's you're choice, but that doesn't take away from the existance of the forest. |
Well said. I've been listening a little more to AM conservative radio pundits lately, just to balance out my time on Air America. Needless to say I disagree with the fanatical approach from both sides, but once you sift through the obvious bias you can usually see the underlying message.
Like all things extreme, take 'em with a grain of salt.
| quote: | | I once read a quote: "People in a democracy get the government they deserve";) |
While my initial reaction would be to agree with this statement, I think there's a little more going on here. We must consider the fact that, for the most part, this country is pretty evenly divided between liberal and conservative views, with a smaller percentage of independents that could sway one way or the other. If we deserve the type of government based solely on those few independents leaning one way or another, I'm not sure that really says much about American society in general.
Ehh, worthy discussion for another thread perhaps.
As for the movie, turns out that it won't be shown in my town for another 2 weeks or so, so I'll have to reserve comment until then. I doubt there will be much that shocks or disturbs me, however. Most folks who've kept up with modern liberal viewpoints should be pretty well versed with Moore's points. |
|
|
| biodigit |
FAQ ABOUT THE FACTS OF FAHRENHEIT 9/11
Are the Facts in Fahrenheit 9/11 True?
Yes, absolutely. Phil Shenon, the New York Times senior correspondent who covers the 9/11 Commission, wrote in a major June 20, 2004, article published about Fahrenheit 9/11, “it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career).” Shenon noted that Michael Moore “hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film.” Philip Shenon, "Michael Moore Is Ready for His Close-Up," New York Times, June 20, 2004.
What about the charge that F9/11 is simply “propaganda”?
F9/11 is, in essence, a cinematic op ed, or “opinion” piece reflecting Michael Moore’s point of view. But as noted in the last question, it is based on irrefutable facts. For the last three years, this country has been subject to only one opinion, coming from the White House and most mainstream news organizations. F9/11 presents a different portrayal of the situation leading up to 9/11, the response to 9/11, and the war in Iraq, than what we have scene from most mainstream news coverage of these events. It asks the questions that should have been asked for the last three years.
Then why are some mainstream journalists, especially network news organizations, criticizing Fahrenheit 9/11?
The mainstream news media is badly skewered in F9/11, so it should be no surprise that certain news organizations, and individuals who have covered issued addressed by F9/11, are critical and somewhat defensive about what the film alleges. The criticisms have more to do with how issues are addressed in the film than assertions that the facts are wrong. As the author Williams Rivers Pitt wrote (co-author with Scott Ritter of 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know), “There are millions of Americans who believed what they were told - about 9/11, about Iraq, about George W. Bush himself - who will come into that bright light with the realization that they have been lied to.… With a single stroke, Michael Moore has undone three years of poor, slanted, biased, factually bereft, compromised television journalism. This, in the end, is the final greatness of 'Fahrenheit 9/11.” (June 25, 2004)
Isn’t this film just “preaching to the choir?”
F9/11 is selling out everywhere, including theaters in Republican strongholds. Its impact has been widespread. A good example is the Pensacola, Fla., resident, a conservative Republican, who told the New York Times, “’Oh my goodness, I cried,…I'm still trying to process everything. It really makes me question what I feel about the president. I'm still going to respect him as our president, but it makes me question his motives. Of course, I think that's the whole point of the film, to question his motives. But after watching it, I do question my loyalty to the president. And that's scary for me.’” Bruce Weber, “Democrats Find Relief Among Allies at 'Fahrenheit 9/11',” New York Times, June 27, 2004. For reactions to the film in all areas of the country, go here.
What does the film say about the Saudi and bin laden family flights out of the country after 9/11?
For a complete analysis of this topic, go here. One thing the film does NOT say, is that these flights left the county while other flights were grounded. Rather, the film says these flights left the country after September 13. These facts are based on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, “After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12.
Some critics have said that the film hides the fact that former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke approved these flights. Is this criticism valid?
Absolutely not. If the film were trying to hide Clarke’s involvement, we would not have included a visual reproduction of the actual New York Times article about the White House decision to approve the flights that prominently mentions Clarke’s name. Clarke has testified, “Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.
Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke says he would approve these flights again. Doesn’t this undermine the film’s point?
Absolutely not. The main question raised by the film, which neither Richard Clarke nor anyone at the White House has ever answered, is why? Why did this happen? What exactly was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country so soon after the worst attack in U.S. history? Why did these Saudi Royals and bin laden family members receive such special treatment, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis? Imagine if the hijackers were North Koreans. It is inconceivable that a group of North Koreans, let alone relatives of the individual who had mastermind the attack, would have been given a one-way ticket out of the country with the cooperation of the White House as soon as airspace was open. Or Imagine President Clinton facilitating the exit of members of the McVeigh out of the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. The bottom line is that we really do not know why it was necessary for the White House to approve the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and “the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged,” according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.
What does Fahrenheit 9/11 say about the relationship between the Bush family and the bin Laden family?
This relationship, and what Fahrenheit 9/11 specifically says about it, is fully explored here. In addition, Phil Shenon wrote in his June 20, 2004 New York Times article about the film, “Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama [although F9/11 raises questions about this point]. Mr. Moore spends several minutes in the film documenting ties between the president and James R. Bath, a financial advisor to a prominent member of the bin Laden family who was an original investor in Mr. Bush's Arbusto energy company and who served with the future president in the Air National Guard in the early 1970's. The Bath friendship, which indirectly links Mr. Bush to the family of the world's most notorious terrorist, has received less attention from national news organization than it has from reporters in Texas, but it has been well documented.” Philip Shenon, Michael Moore Is Ready for His Close-Up, New York Times, June 20, 2004.
What about the film’s charge that Bush ignored warnings about possible attacks by Al Qaeda in 2001, and was on vacation 42 percent of the time that year?
Phil Shenon, who covers the 9/11 commission for the New York Times, wrote, “Mr. Moore charges that President Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, C.I.A. briefing that warned of terrorism within the country's borders. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Mr. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post.” Philip Shenon, Michael Moore Is Ready for His Close-Up, New York Times, June 20, 2004. In fact, here’s what the Washington Post said: “News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’” Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.
Does the film hide the fact that Bush took “working vacations” during this period?
No, to the contrary, the film shows a clip of Bush and Tony Blair at Camp David.
The footage of pre-war Iraq includes scenes of happy children. What is the point of showing this footage?
This is accurate footage shot before U.S. bombs started to fall in Iraq. It is meant to show some of the kinds of people our bombs hit soon after – the kinds of casualties rarely shown by mainstream news coverage of the war. Many Iraqis civilians, including children, were killed. As has been recently revealed, “The United States launched many more failed airstrikes on a far broader array of senior Iraqi leaders during the early days of the war last year than has previously been acknowledged, and some caused significant civilian casualties, according to senior military and intelligence officials. Only a few of the 50 airstrikes have been described in public. All were unsuccessful, and many, including the two well-known raids on Saddam Hussein and his sons, appear to have been undercut by poor intelligence, current and former government officials said.” Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt, Errors Are Seen In Early Attacks On Iraqi Leaders, New York Times, June 13, 2004. |
|
|
| hausmusic |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
problem with michael moore is all he did was cut and edit most interviews...paste video edits
all to portray his view and cast the other side in dark light
ex: he cut out an interview with a congressman when he responded he did indeed have 2 nephews in the army fighting.
i bet you michael moore felt like a fat dumbass. But then again, what does he do? he goes and cuts and paste only the congressman's image as he walks away |
That question was asked of Michael Moore in a recent interview, he said that he has the whole footage and the congressman in fact does NOT say that his 2 nephews where at war in Iraq, his nephews went to Afghanistan after the interview was taken. The congressman was blatantly lying.
I can’t believe your talking you haven’t even seen the movie. LOL!
Spare us go watch the movie. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
I just saw this movie
Several flaws |
I would like to address some of your points. I admitted earlier that I haven’t seen the movie just yet, and you can disqualify me at your discretion as a result, but I’m going to take an educated “guess” as to how Moore addressed his points below.
| quote: | | 1)Saudis' and bush adminstration relationship is completely blown out of porportion. |
I’m sure it probably was pretty far to the extreme, though we cannot discredit some of the obvious ties and history between the Bush family and the Saudis.
| quote: | Ex: Some of the recent beheadings recently have been held by extremist saudi militiants
they claimed responsibility to the beheading of paul johnson. Today a memorial service was held on his behalf, Without the remains or body. |
How does this example demonstrate your point of a lack of connection between the Bush family and the Saudis? The individuals who seized and beheaded Johnson were extremists and had little to do with the government (though there are speculative reports of policemen aiding the extremists in Johnson’s capture). It is well known that the Saudis are in a struggle of their own with extremist terrorists, including Al Qaeda. This battle within their borders centers around the Saudi’s direct connection (political, military, oil) to the West. I do not understand how this exemplifies your point of a lack of connection between Bush and the Saudi Royals.
| quote: | The body was siezed by the saudi govt.
The saudi govt has refused to hand over the body to the family even at the request of the bush adminstration. |
I have seen nothing in the news about the Saudi gov’t seizing Johnson’s body. From everything I have read the Saudis are still looking for his body. Do you have a news link to confirm your statement?
| quote: | | 2)MOst saudi's hate americans and bush. That is not an opinion and a recent poll was shown on msnbc a couple days back. |
I believe someone else addressed this, but it’s likely that the common Saudi citizen despises Bush because of his neo-con plans to imperialize and plant military bases throughout the Middle East. This certainly doesn’t sit well with most citizens of most Middle East countries (except, of course, Israel). For some reason it seems that most Bush supporters believe it’s appropriate to force our democratic way of government down the throats of 3rd world countries, esp. in Muslim regions. While our government may be superior in most ways (freedom, liberty, minority rights, etc.), it cannot and should not be forced or coerced into another country or region. This is certainly the case in Iraq, and whether this occurs in other countries remains to be seen. Nevertheless this is the perception for most Middle East citizens of Americans, and we have done little to help this perception.
Besides, as I mentioned before, we certainly cannot discredit the obvious connections between the Saudis and the Bush family. A good summary of the connections can be found here:
http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...JRJ8OVF&b=99415
| quote: | 3) One woman and her lost son which GOD BLESS HIM
can not symbolize the entire population of parents who have sons in iraq |
Certainly not, and I’m going to assume it was not Moore’s primary point for showing this. Rather, he may simply be trying to demonstrate the negative aspects of war which are often overlooked, even by today’s “liberal” media (I use that term pretty damn loosely). It’s pretty well known that Moore is a pacifist. He was, at first, against the Afghanistan War, though he later somewhat recanted that view (probably after he realized how incorrect his stance was on the matter).
| quote: | 4) Main reason we all go to school and is to get an education. ONe day maybe
live a wealthy life and have kids and Put them in situations or living environments where education is a priority and not going to the army is not a 1st choice. Keep them away from bad influences(gangs/drugs/etc). People in the film are shown as minority people signing up for the army. They are not obligated to do so....they put themselves in that situation from the get go.
**this goes back to democrats---aff action/welfare etc vs republicans*** |
While I certainly believe that each individual is responsible for their own actions, we nevertheless cannot escape the sociological realities of growing up in different environments and the impacts on the future outcomes of an individual. True, no one is obligated to sign up for the military. But it is more enticing for a minority in a low income environment with poor education facilities to have automatic employment with a future career and paid higher education by enlisting in the military versus a middle/upper class Caucasian who grew up in a well-off educational environment, has a college fund saved up to pay for his 4 years or more in college, and has more opportunities in life as a result of his higher education advantage. It is the likely reason why we see such a high % of minorities and lower income citizens enlist in the military versus the middle/upper class.
| quote: | | I myself am a minority, grew up in urban slums and was around gangs when i was younger. I got beat up several times. My mom was very strict with me....moved me to another school and we moved elsewhere. With my parents today i am in college and god let it be; Ill have a future. |
As mentioned, everyone is responsible for their actions, and I’m sure you agree that it was a blessing that your mother was a strict parent and helped steer you in the right direction. I think you would agree, however, that you are the exception and not the rule.
| quote: | | Michael moore makes it seem as if BUSH is forcing the poverty to fight his war. This is a complete joke and another cry move by democrats as usual. whoever is fighting the war...god bless...but for god sakes dont begin to nick pick why and who is behind the flanks |
Why not? I think there’s a point to who is fighting our wars. Historically it’s always been the disadvantaged who fights wars for our country. Don’t you think that point deserves a little merit?
And to the point about Moore interviewing Congressmen for enlisting their kids in the military – then editing out the part on running across the Congressmen who has to kids in the military. Umm, so what? So he ran into one Congressmen who has 2 kids serving – that was an exception and a miniscule percentage of our Legislature member’s kids in the military. Why would he put that in his movie when it does not serve his legitimate point? Only 7 children out of 535 Senators and Congressmen have children in the military. Don’t you think that has an influence on whether or not to send troops to war, esp. if it’s your kid that must go? Here’s a pretty good article from a conservative website. Though I don’t necessarily agree with his second premise (forced draft), he does concede the point about the necessity of war when your own kids must go:
| quote: | Here at home a study finds just seven children of the nation's 535 incumbent senators and congressmen serving in the military. From Northwestern's Charles Moskos, a leading military sociologist: "When you have children of the elite serving, you are less likely to go to war and more likely to stay in. When no children of the elite are serving, you are more likely to go to war and less likely to stay in." Looks (a) like another indicator of the widening chasm between the country's civilian and military sectors. And (b) it looks like yet another reason for one year of compulsory universal service for men and women 18 to 23 - no exceptions - with a front-end military component. Such a program would close the gap and give the nation a vast pool of semi-trained (and more sympathetic) manpower when its regular forces are stretched thin - as now.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...m20040415.shtml |
(Hey Shakka, aren’t you surprised I read townhall?)
| quote: | Also worth nothing This movie is non factual
basically a extreme liberal jihad penguin movie
looking to draw votes for this years election |
About as nonfactual as the Limbaugh letter, or O’Reilly’s Talking Points memo I guess. Take ‘em all with a grain of salt.
I doubt this movie will have very much of an impact on votes, however, so I wouldn’t worry too much if I were you. For the most part the majority of voters have already made up their minds, and I speculate that the independent sway voters likely will see through the obvious bias of any left-wing/right-wing fanaticism.
| quote: | punctuation and all the english teachers on this board:stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
its 2 am and im tired |
Hope you got more sleep. I’m ing tired as hell today with about 5 hrs. sleep for the whole weekend (don’t ask).
| quote: | also michael moore is about as hypocrite as they come.
In fact, despite his proclamations that "capitalism is a sin" and "an evil system," he lives in a $1.9 million apartment in Manhattan and enjoys a $1.2 million summer home on Torch Lake in Michigan. |
On the one hand, conservatives say that we should enjoy the amenities that our hard work has brought us. Yet they love to call “foul” when a liberal does the same?
Can Moore give a voice to the minorities and lower income, while still earning his keep? Personally, I don’t lose too much sleep over it. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT
One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.
Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.
Recruiters in Michigan
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.
He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."
A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.
The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.
But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)
That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)
Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."
The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.
Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.
I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.
Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.
Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.
However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.
Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.
Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:
The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …
And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.
If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.
Correction, June 22, 2004: This piece originally referred to terrorist attacks by Abu Nidal's group on the Munich and Rome airports. The 1985 attacks occurred at the Rome and Vienna airports. (Return to the corrected sentence.)
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback. |
|
|
| tranzformer |
| As a history major in college, i have learned that no matter what the issue is at stake, you can twist and spin the details/facts in such away to support your case. I have seen this done all the time in books as well as when I write my papers. Is there anything wrong with that, I don’t think so. Lawyers and businessmen do it all the time, it’s a way to accomplish your goal. You just disregard the stuff that hurts your case/ Moore is out after his goal of getting Bush out of office. Having said that, everyone knows this woulnd not be a fair description of what really happend. Moore is just as biased as anyone else. It’s not like a respected company like BBC or NOVA did a documentary on it. This is Moore, a millionaire who does this type of bashing for money. If Moore had done an equal amount of work on both sides, he would have gained a lot more respect from me. Sure making of Bush is easy, but one could do the same of anyone, even me. I’ve been an idiot a lot, and anyone to say they haven’t is lying. I think everyone needs to be honest with themselves and admit that when they saw this movie they had their minds made up already. Those who hate Bush will embrace this movie and those who like him will shun it. |
|
|
|
|
