Farenheit 9/11

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:08 am

Glad to know he voted for Bush then.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:18 am

Sage wrote: Whining about her boy being killed. Yeh, no **** you ****ing whore, people die in war. No shut the **** up and eat you mac donald and get even fatter....

This was the most disgusting display of being heartless I've read here so far.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:54 am

While it was over-the-top, it kinda summarizes my feelings as well. When you sign up for military service, you sign up knowing that you might get sent off to combat and possibly killed. To turn around and blame the military is nothing more than an attempt to disguise your own ignorance.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:06 am

Palz, *of course* bash's argument was silly -- why do you think it had the ;) at the end of it? But being silly doesn't make it invalid -- it's still a fair reason to avoid watching the movie. Also, I notice you paid exactly zero attention to my later clarifications:

1) I've only seen 2 movies in the theater in the past year, and I'm not particularly interested in making this the third.
2) Everything I've read from Michael Moore paints a picture of a guy who I have no interest in continuing to listen to. He respects people about as much as Rican did, and his facts tend to be about as accurate as Rican's.
3) If he actually says anything of substance, I'm sure I'll hear about it from all the people who wasted their 7 bucks :) The only thing seeing the movie would do for me is drain 7 bucks and a few hours time, and then I'd be right back here agreeing with you that there wasn't anything new there.

I have a question, though. You say:

most of the criticism in the film is already known and either ignored, treated with lame apology, or denied either cynically or delusionally.

It seems to me that you're implicitly stating that most of the criticism is valid, and none of it to have been dealt with in a valid way. Do you believe that to be the case?

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:19 pm

i didn't address your later points because i have no significant objection to them. While I think those later statements are debatable, i have no need to champion Michael Moore and think that such debatable points could go either way. However, on the question of whether Michael Moore is more of a profiteer than Dick Cheney...not even debatable. Maybe it is still valid to say you wouldn't see the film because you don't want him to profit.

But the notion that he is a profiteer or more of a profiteer than many in the administration is just plain silly. this would be like arguing over and over again that Ted Bundy is a great guy who should be set free and you'd let him baby sit your children, while at the same time arguing that John Hinkley, Jr. is a filthy murderer who should get the death penalty. It's a form of hypocrisy or double standard.

As far as your very last point above...

remember the thread where i was talking about the "problem" indicated by our finding no wmd? there was no sincere debate going on there at all. every right winger here was asserting it was either no problem or of little significance. it is this type of thing that constitutes failng to seriously address valid criticism. i'd rather not rehash that whole debate, but i think it serves as an example of how people would blindly deny the significance of criticism made by moore.

you cannot obfuscate the facts and just declare victory in your argument and have it mean anything. Moore's criticism should be addressed. If he makes a point that makes the administration look bad, someone should defend it. But the criticism has to be taken seriously, not dealth with by adhominem, or straw man fallacies. and not just waved off out of a desire for it to be wrong. one must actually prove its wrong.

even if moore were a profiteer, that doesn't mean his criticism is invalid; it's ad hominem as well as a double standard - hence silly.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:21 pm

Pardon me, but I'm pretty sure the onus is on Michael Moore to prove that he's right. Not that the accused can't prove him wrong, but the whole "guilty until proven innocent" feeling that permeates the opposition to this administration really gets to me.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:56 pm

i agree, the onus is him. but that's not what my particular contribution to this thread is about. I'm saying he's played his hand by being critical in the first place. now his criticism should be responded to. but most of the response in this thread is based on fallacy and rhetoric.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:34 pm

the notion that he is a profiteer or more of a profiteer than many in the administration is just plain silly.

Nobody here said that. I said seriously that I don't want him to get my money, and I said playfully (in quoting bash) that he's a war profiteer -- which, of course, relates to a previous thread on the DBB. It doesn't mean he's the only war profiteer, or that he's more of a war profiteer than Cheney (though that actually is legitimately up for debate, despite your calling the notion "silly).

most of the response in this thread is based on fallacy and rhetoric

What response are you talking about? "I haven't seen the movie, and I'm not going to spend 7 bucks to do so" is not a response (based on fallacy and rhetoric) to the criticisms, it's a response (based on time and money) to the fact that the movie doesn't interest me enough to spend 7 bucks and a few hours watching.

It wasn't until your post that there even was valid criticism to think about responding to -- but, like you said, it's nothing new. You already know the responses to it. Why should any of us bother rehashing it? If you have a specific criticism that you're seeking response to, feel free to post it and say "I'd like response to this particular criticism" -- but if you're just going to say "here's what was in the movie, and it's nothing new, and we've all heard the responses" then I'm going to agree that it's nothing new and we've all heard the responses, and I'm going to leave it at that.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:22 pm

not a problem, sir. my point was just a minor quibble anyway. it's just that you are the only one here i see posting anything of substance as far as what's wrong with moore, or why you'd avoid the film, so i really have no quarrel with you.

while i have no doubt that you were initially quoting bash in a jocular vein, i have no doubt that he was dead serious

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:37 pm

DCrazy wrote:While it was over-the-top, it kinda summarizes my feelings as well. When you sign up for military service, you sign up knowing that you might get sent off to combat and possibly killed. To turn around and blame the military is nothing more than an attempt to disguise your own ignorance.

It would be ignorant for a parent to not mourn their child's death and not understand the sacrifice they made. It would be dishonest and disrespectful to not honor them by saying you miss them, or you want them back or that they loved you and instead just say "Well you joined you, that's the way it goes." Sure, people die in war, but that doesn't mean you like it. That doesn't mean you ignore it. That doesn't mean you pussy foot around it by saying "because that's the way it is" and accept it whole heartedly. And it certainly doesn't mean you lump your son into the "cost of war" as if he were a statistic and you just happened to be on the losing end.

And she isn't blaming the military, she is questioning the cause. She wants to know why her son died, not how or by whose hand.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:45 pm

Never did I say that she had no right to mourn. She has no right to use her son's death as a reason why the government should not be doing what it is doing, much less Michael Fvcking Moore. Her son rescinded that right when he joined the chain of command at the bottom. Quite frankly the military can't work efficiently otherwise.

I would be heartbroken if I were her, and I might do the same, but only under the cloud of emotional distress. Seeing it from the outside, it's disappointingly obvious that you sign your life away when you join the military, and you have to consider yourself lucky if you still have it when you get out. My fear of death is why I don't join the military, and I envy the courage of those who do, knowing full-well the risks. I pity those who join the military not knowing the extreme danger that can arise at a moment's notice, and I despise those that sign up thinking they can get a free college ride because "wars are so 20th century."

Her son died because he was serving the military and the country he so loved that he donated his life. Sorry to sound like a teary-eyed America-drunk Hannity ass-kisser here but it's the truth.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:09 pm

I just saw the movie this afternoon. I think bash should see it.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:41 pm

He only made it half way through BFC, with this movie he wouldn't even make it through the previews.

"oh thats it, spiderman 2, what kinda liberal BS spin is this? I'm out!"

melvin · Post by **melvin** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:14 pm

nothing to add except i think everyone here might enjoy this critique of the movie by Christopher Hitchens.

read me

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:44 pm

That was a pretty weak critique, it hardly even mentions parts of the movies, just his personal history of Moore, and things that were "left out" of the movie.

I guess thats a critique sorta...

I loved his responce to Moore's criticism that poor blacks are sharing an unequal precentage load of the war burden,

... 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.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:27 am

That's what I've been saying Vander. I still stand by my convictions that anyone who does not see this movie due to their beliefs is doing themselves a great disservice.

Today I was listening to Tom Leykis (i can already tell that some here won't like this) and he was talking about 9/11 today. I heard a caller state his argument that was errily close to what Lothar has said in this thread. If they received their information from the same source, I'll never know.

Now this does not mean I'm not planning on seeing the movie. I am. If not in theaters, then on DVD. But I know that he has a far-left slant and i'll be ready for that when I go in. I'll also know it will be from one man's point of view. Like anyone else, he is entitled to an opinion. and it's an interesting opinion at that.

I took a look at that link Melvin posted, and right away I knew it was a load of crap. because it's the standard conservative 'moore lies!' argument. no fact, just opinion. and a weak one at that.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:43 am

It probably has been said multiple times in this thread (haven't read any of it, didn't care to), but shouldn't this be moved to E&C?

Ympakt · Post by **Ympakt** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:55 am

Wow, it's a relief to come here and see a more level-headed discussion about the movie. I've been duking it out on another message board with some guy who, when I posted the thread about the film, responds like: blah blah Moore fat B@$7@rD liberal propaganda me vietnam vet liberal wusses and your momma too..... I dared him to see the film, somehow I don't think he will.

At any rate, it was a good flick. Funny as heck is some places, others were a real kick in the nads; like the presentation of 9/11 or the Flint, MI mom who'd lost her son. As far as Moore profiting from the war, welcome to capitatlism. You should see the segments in the film about the companies jockeying for the juiciest government contracts, wondering how they could make the most money off the war. Sure made Haliburton look bad, but they've done that without the film's help. It was terrible to see the effects of war on our soldiers, some had all but turned into zombies, wondering which CD was the best to listen to when they started killing. There were surprising relevations regarding the Bush/Saud/Laden conncetions. If true, it makes me feel like the American people have been suckered, and we elected our way right into the war.

E&C? Maybe. It's a thread about a movie. A movie that asks ethical questions.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:05 am

Since when was it our responsibility as human beings to know every side to every issue in existence? No matter what the cost?

Granted, the more you know about varying opposing views, the better you'll be, in whatever context that is at least, but it hardly makes you a scoundrel of a human being, or a hypocrite.

I'm not seeing this movie "due to [my] beliefs" not because I'm conservative, or whatever, or that I'm a stubborn jackass (although I am). My "belief" is that this movie is intentionally misrepresenting information. Instead of improving my understanding of varying sides, my "belief" is that it would distort them.

I mean, come on, we practice this crap all the time in day to day life. If the KKK released a movie, would I have to see that too? If I hadn't, would I be any less justified in criticizing them either? I don't suppose you went to see Gigli to see if it really did suck?!

[edit: no more last paragraph]

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:11 am

Ympakt wrote:...It was terrible to see the effects of war on our soldiers, some had all but turned into zombies, wondering which CD was the best to listen to when they started killing...

I don't think that's true; I think that's the nature of the beast. It's very close to real life video game. You ever pop in a CD while playing Descent or UT or while you're at work? It gets you motivated to do the task at hand if it's the right kind of music. Listening to music in the tank would pump up the soldiers to do their jobs.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:25 am

Gooberman wrote:I loved his responce to Moore's criticism that poor blacks are sharing an unequal precentage load of the war burden,...

Would it matter to you if you knew Moore lied about the blacks unfairly bearing the burden?
This is old news but apparantly Moore is benefitting from an ignorant audience.

"It is wrong to say that minorities are disproportionately bearing the burden. Whites are indeed slightly under-represented in today's active-duty military as a whole: They make up 64.2 percent of the force, compared with 69.1 percent of the U.S. population. (The reserve components are somewhat whiter.) But whites are slightly over-represented among the dead, at 70.9 percent.

Conversely, African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole. They make up 19.1 percent of the active-duty force, and a staggering 24 percent of the Army, as opposed to just 12.1 percent of the population. But blacks are not significantly over-represented among the dead of this global war: They make up only 12.4 percent.

The reason for this discrepancy, say experts, is that although blacks sign up in greater numbers, they cluster pragmatically in noncombat units whose training in mechanics, electronics, and logistics translates well into civilian careers upon leaving uniform. "The proportion of blacks to whites is very much smaller in the combat arms than in other branches," said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the Army War College and a noted author. He added that Special Forces and aviation units have the smallest percentage of minorities of all segments of the military."

From here but you can find it anywhere the truth is told.

PS: 'what he left out' is why it's not an honest depiction of the events.
But there's nothing wrong with enjoying some good fiction...just don't call it a documentary.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:54 am

"If true, it makes me feel like the American people have been suckered, and we elected our way right into the war."

I said this months before Bush was 'elected'. Something along the lines of "If Bush becomes President, we'll be at war within the year." It was so obvious he was itching to do so.

(topic: I havn't seen the movie yet)

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:03 am

Ympakt wrote:There were surprising relevations regarding the Bush/Saud/Laden conncetions. If true, it makes me feel like the American people have been suckered, and we elected our way right into the war.

I'd love to hear how he represented that whole thing, it's been distorted and lied about by democrat hacks for over a year now. Considering Moore has put filmaking second to being a hack himself I have little doubt that he also left out the truth to make it 'seem' like there was something to it.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:44 am

Jeff250 wrote: My "belief" is that this movie is intentionally misrepresenting information. Instead of improving my understanding of varying sides, my "belief" is that it would distort them.

how perfectly understandable. i mean...why bother with a film if it's just going to poke fun at all the honest, hardworking folks in the Bush administration who would never misrepresent lil ol facts.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:24 am

"If the KKK released a movie, would I have to see that too?"

uhm.. that's quite a stretch and kinda scary

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:38 am

Zero! wrote:ive watched moores "blowing for colmbine" it was pretty good

Haha...I think that was the funniest part of this thread...I think I've seen Blowing for Colombine too...on Cinemax at one in the morning on Saturdays.

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:58 am

Tyranny wrote:shouldn't this be moved to E&C?

Yes it should, I keep accidentally clicking this thread and keep getting electrocuted from all the liberal / conservative friction.

You are all aware that this movie is not going to change anyone on this board's mind, and that you should probably stop argueing about it?

*looks around with crazy, hopeful look in his eyes*

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:51 am

Ferno, what argument was put forth that was "eerily similar to mine"? And why do you think I got my argument from anywhere but my own brain?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:44 pm

"they're lost in a sea of misinformation and plain fabrication in his movie. " - Thunderbunny

Please post specifics regarding this position. Honestly, I'd love to hear it. I've read all sorts of reports, but heard nothing about complete fabrication.

"He's exploiting the common presumption that it is a documentary. "

If you ask moore, he says the movie is his opinion, not an objective viewpoint.

"Bush and Chaney, et all really ARE profiteers."

Yep. Profit may not have been their primary motivation, but they tacked it on there no problem

Great post, Palz (Well, maybe minus some of the Bash Bashing

I think Lothar's points about not wanting to see it are valid. He's seen other movies by moore and didn't like them. Moore doesn't fabricate, but he can selectively report. I understand the Rush comparison, but I think Moore is far from being as bad as rush. But, by not seeing it he loses the right to criticize the film

"Moore's criticism should be addressed. If he makes a point that makes the administration look bad, someone should defend it."

Agree. Driving home from oregon yesterday I listened to republican talk radio (Savage, Rush) and they not ONCE addressed a point made by Moore. They admitted to NOT having seen the movie, yet asserted it was all lies. How convenient.

" My "belief" is that this movie is intentionally misrepresenting information." - Jeff250, after saying he hasn't seen the movie.

How sad. You haven't even seen it! I have no problems when someone sees the movie and makes a valid point--for example Moore making the bin laden family exiting the USA issue slightly unclear. Sounds to me like you're just knee-jerk listening to your conservative base. See the movie, then criticize.

Melvin's link didn't work for me--anyone else able to see it besides goob?

I'm going to see the film today, I'll be back with my opinion but from what I've heard it's nothing new if you'd read Moore's recent material.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:11 pm

"Moore making the bin laden family exiting the USA issue"

I'd heard this a few days after 9/11, tho' I wasn't sure if it was Saddam's family in the US, or Bin Ladens. All air traffic was immediately grounded, except for a few planes, and they were carrying some political people out of the country. This was within hours of the hits. (I heard from several highly active independent parties in Phili, neither repubs or Dems.) I'd like to see what Moore thinks it was, and how close it is to what I was told.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:24 pm

Tyranny wrote:It probably has been said multiple times in this thread (haven't read any of it, didn't care to), but shouldn't this be moved to E&C?

I left it here because its a discussion of the movie. Just because its gone do debating/discussing Moore's tactics doesn't automatically mean it goes to E&C. Besides, the fact that the Cafe could use an actual serious thread every now and then.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:45 pm

for birds,

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

Moore: Trying to have it three ways

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.

Continue Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Somethingâ??I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do nowâ??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 allâ??the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002â??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 Kandaharâ??an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-buildingâ??is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular leftâ??like the parties of the Iraqi secular leftâ??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 thatâ??as you might expectâ??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 sayâ??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. Thenâ??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 thisâ??his pro-American momentâ??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 repelledâ??Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many moreâ??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 reportedâ??and the David Kay report had establishedâ??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 warningsâ??not exactly an original pointâ??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.) Soâ??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. Againâ??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 draftâ??the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he thinkâ??as he seems to suggestâ??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.

Trying to talk congressmen into sending their sons to war

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 planesâ??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 lawyersâ??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 (â?¦), 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 â?¦

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.

Photograph of Michael Moore by Pascal Guyot/Agence France-Presse. Stills from Fahrenheit 9/11 Â© 2004 Lions Gate Films. All Rights Reserved.Photograph of Michael Moore on the Slate home page by Eric Gaillard/Reuters.

........................................................

Will, have you seen the movie? Even your own article says, "African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole" and "Whites are indeed slightly under-represented in today's active-duty military as a whole". I hate to burst any bubbles, but this was Moore's entire point.

Now while Moore did make it obvious that they were recruiting poor blacks, he also hit home that it was the "poor going to war for the rich," and then seemed to note that percentage wise the poor tend to be black. To me Moore was saying that the poor fight in larger percentages, more then he was saying, that the 'blacks fight' more. The critique doesn't give a valid counter-criticism to this at all. And the critics responce was still just silly.

Further, according to your article, blacks are still dying greater then their U.S. population percentage, as are whites ( which seriously makes me suspicious of the article, who is getting off so easy?). However, the difference only being like 6%. Given the *relatively* few amount whom have died in this war, that is just not a large enough sample population to have an error less then 6% compared to the whole military complexion to come to the conclusions that you have. Also, it says in combat scenarios their representation is "less", less then what? Their national percentage or their almost double percentage in other branches? I would so much rather all numbers, no words. Even still, this has nothing to do with the first two things I quoted from your article, still being a reality! Still being the core of the point that Moore was making.

The points Moore made are in your article! And sadly, not addressed, only diverted. He responds by saying, "well, if you look over here...."

Moore says he isn't fair to the right. He isn't looking for fair. He is looking for his criticisms to be addressed. Not diverted.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:25 pm

The bold type is my emphasis:

Gooberman wrote:I loved his responce to Moore's criticism that poor blacks are sharing an unequal precentage load of the war burden,...

I didn't need to see the movie to respond directly to your statement.
The statement is false, and I question the motive of whoever originally said it. It's false because per capita, among all volunteers in the military, Blacks die at a lower rate than whites.

I believe that if you volunteer for duty, which all members of the military do, and you don't die, then there is no unusual burden, fairly distributed or otherwise! If you volunteer for a job it's not a burden in and of itself!

Do you think blacks volunteered for duty under the false assumption that their numbers wouldn't excede the national population average? I don't think so.

Whether or not more blacks happen to work in the military or not is irrelevant to the War on Terror or Bush's presidency. Most of the people in uniform today signed up before Bush was elected.

Do you think the statement that "poor blacks are sharing an unequal precentage load of the war burden" is designed to start debate on the reasons that a black man chooses a career in the military...or was it to play the race card and infer, unfairly and dishonestly, that 'whitey is using the black man to fight his war'?

Be honest, what conclusion do you think the average ignoramous is going to draw from the statement "Blacks are bearing an unequal percentage load of the war burden"?
I'll bet you that in the film, the context used didn't lead one to think of the long term cultural issues nearly as much as it led one to think of Bush and how he is responsible for the black man dying in Iraq.
You saw the movie, tell me honestly, which way did Moore play it?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:33 pm

I think that conservatives should watch the movie, if only to give them an example of what a "liberal media" would actually look like, instead of the one they think they see in the mainstream.

SSC BlueFlames · Post by **SSC BlueFlames** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:38 pm

I'm pretty liberal, and I've no real interest in seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 (not that any cinema in East Tennessee is going to show it anyway). Even from the advertising, it's quite apparent that a number of Moore's criticisms rely on half-truths and political spin-doctoring. Just because Moore admits to this practice doesn't change the fact that I don't want to see it in a movie labeled "documentary".

Just to toss an example out there, Moore makes a big to-do over Bush Jr. having connections to the Bin Laden family. Regardless of what proof he presents, it's an irrelevant point since most of the Bin Laden family has been disconnected from Osama and had living in the United States until they left fearing an anti-Muslim backlash. Telling me that Bush Jr. is linked to wealthy, (more or less) American capitalists basically tells me that he's a typical politician.

On the other side of the token is the crap I already knew about Bush Jr. and really don't need to hear repeated. His treating the first two years of his Presidency like a corporate executive treats an early retirement (on a golf course without a care in the world) springs to mind.

ABC News just ran another bit on Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight. To paraphrase, informed viewers are going to pick up on the steaming piles of crap and dismiss them for what they are, but most people going to see the film aren't necessarily the most well-informed. I think that those who do try to keep up with political news that go to see Fahrenheit 9/11 are just going to be more polarized by it. In general, a pro-Bush Jr. person going to see the film is going just to poke holes in the arguments presented while happily "forgetting" the arguments that do ring true. Similarly, someone who is anti-Bush Jr. will go to see another media icon agree with him/her while "forgetting" the stuff that's utter crap. (These are generalizations, so if you went to have your opinions changed or manipulated, try not to take offense.)

To me, it just seems like Moore is attempting to manipulate under-informed people with arguments that rate only slightly better than misinformation. I get enough of that from Rican and Woodchip in the E&C forum here to be able to dismiss Michael Moore and Fox News when I go offline.

Ympakt · Post by **Ympakt** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:01 pm

Topher wrote:

I don't think that's true; I think that's the nature of the beast. It's very close to real life video game. You ever pop in a CD while playing Descent or UT or while you're at work? It gets you motivated to do the task at hand if it's the right kind of music. Listening to music in the tank would pump up the soldiers to do their jobs.

Dude, that's not even funny. How can you compare sending hit packets over TCP/IP to sending bullets into peoples bodies. Yes, I know, all soldiers say that you don't have time to think about stuff like that; but his is not a game. It has very obvious effects on the people paticipating. I didn't catch whether or not you'd seen the film, but if you could see the "thousand-yard-stare" on some of these guys faces, you know things aren't all right upstairs.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:25 pm

Lothar, I told you. it was a caller that was speaking on a talk radio show. what he said was very similar to what you have stated about Moore.

The show? Tom Leykis.

Vander, I think some if them have, and dismissed them as 'a pack of lies'. Also, some conservative groups have gone as far as to intimidate theaters into not showing 9/11 with boycotts, pickets and the like.

Food for thought: those who say a documentary is objective are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:29 pm

How sad. You haven't even seen it! I have no problems when someone sees the movie and makes a valid point--for example Moore making the bin laden family exiting the USA issue slightly unclear. Sounds to me like you're just knee-jerk listening to your conservative base. See the movie, then criticize.

Everyone has a bias, but, ultimately, the most anyone will get away with will usually be along the lines of semantics, e.g. uprising/insurrection, terrorists/infidels, President/dictator, etc. Such diction doesn't derastically change what is being presented. Moore, instead, has already set a precedent of deliberately misrepresenting information with the intention of creating a viewer perception that is not true, sometimes by simply skewing the truth himself.

I shouldn't have to "criticize" the parts where that, for whatever reason, my intended perception is untrue, unless you're simply suggesting that when I see the documentary I'll be blown away by the fact that they don't exist.

Not that I'll really ever know watching it whether or not anything being presented is true anyways.

"Hmmm... that's interesting... I wonder if that's true."

That is NOT the environment to learn ANYTHING. Whether I walk out believing all of it or believing none of it, I'd be in a sadder state of affairs than when I walked in, and there would be no decisive way of discerning in the theater. And if I were to do Internet research, why not just skip the middle man of a movie anyways.

Besides, try taking a chick to see it!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:00 am

Ferno wrote:Lothar, I told you. it was a caller that was speaking on a talk radio show. what he said was very similar to what you have stated about Moore.

*Which* things that I've stated about Moore? That's what I'm asking. And once you've answered that, what makes you think the thoughts didn't arise independently in both our brains?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:18 pm

Will, your adding to what I said, your adding to what Moore said. I said, as you bolded, "poor blacks are sharing an unequal percentage load of the war burden,...". That is what I meant.

If you think the statement is false, find an article that supports your claim, the one you provided supports this, Moore's movie supports this. Again, go back to the things that I quoted form your article.

I suspect that if you saw the movie we wouldn't be having this conversation. Of the two mothers in the movie who lost sons in the war, both were white. To the best of my recollection the only black mother we saw who lost a son, lost him in the world trade center. Moore wasn't making the point that you assumed he was, he was making the point that I said, that your article said, that is a reality. But I digress...

You seem to be making the argument that if you don't die in war, then war isn't a burden to you. If this is so, then, respectively, there has never been anything that you have ever said on this BB that I could disagree with more. I know two people whom I considered close friends (real life, not internet) over, one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq. When my friend left his girlfriend practically went anorexic, she couldn't sleep, she didn't eat. They had planned on getting married, moving to Colorado where he could train in Judo, he has his black belt and wanted to try and make the Olympic team. Put yourself in their shoes and then tell me that it is not a burden because he hasn't died. War changes people, and not for the better.

The reality is that alot of people sign up because it will help pay for college, or help them out in some other way. They didn't expect to go to war. Does this make them foolish, yes, somewhat. But there is no doubt in my mind that those whom are so quick to criticize them, have lived relatively sheltered lives. Look at Sage's comments in this thread, how much you wanna bet his parents are going to wipe his ass until he is out of college?

Be honest, what conclusion do you think the average ignoramous is going to draw

I don't think the average is an ignoramous. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe this is what gets the right so mad at his films. He presents a biased opinion, but non-the-less, with valid criticisms. I think most people see this....