Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unfairenheit 9/11 The Lies of Michael Moore by Christopher Hitchens
Slate via The Drudge Report ^ | 6/22/04 | Christopher Hitchens

Posted on 06/21/2004 10:53:11 PM PDT by GVnana

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 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.

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

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; christopherhitchens; farenheit911; hitchens; moore
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last
Don't pay money for this.
1 posted on 06/21/2004 10:53:11 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GVgirl
already posted here.
2 posted on 06/21/2004 10:57:53 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl
I read this earlier, on Drudge..

An excellent article, but a long read..

Hitchens calls Moore out..
Dares him to debate, sue, whatever..
Calls f'nheit/911 "crap"...
Calls Moore several other names..

Highly enjoyable..

3 posted on 06/21/2004 11:00:27 PM PDT by Drammach (Ripley... Last survivor of the Nostromo.... signing off....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy

Whoops. I checked author and title and got nothing.

4 posted on 06/21/2004 11:04:04 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drammach

And Moore deserves every word of it. What a dishonest slob he is.

5 posted on 06/21/2004 11:07:03 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl
"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." -- Thank you Christopher Hitchens ........... this says it all.

Moral frivolity, political cowardess.

6 posted on 06/21/2004 11:34:39 PM PDT by beyond the sea (anyone who says he can see through women is missing alot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl

"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. "

Great read. Loved the last two sentences in this article.

7 posted on 06/21/2004 11:43:04 PM PDT by kb2614 ( You have everything to fear, including fear itself. - The new DNC slogan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl
Wow, what an outstanding article and thorough @ss ripping by Hitchens. Thanks for the post!


8 posted on 06/22/2004 1:04:38 AM PDT by LiberalBassTurds (Michael Moore is a stupid white whale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: diotima

Moore gets a new orifice ping

9 posted on 06/22/2004 1:08:51 AM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl

Just excellent...He's on target again!

10 posted on 06/22/2004 2:14:13 AM PDT by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl
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.

I sure can't disagree with this comment. All these folks are going to accomplish by attempting to block the film is help to distract from just how stupid moore and his followers really are.

11 posted on 06/22/2004 3:47:26 AM PDT by Schnucki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl

"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."

Hitchens calling Moore sinister = "evil", and I thought he was an atheist.

Hitchens seems also questioning patriotism. Thank you Clintons & "Sid" one more freed from political cowardice.

12 posted on 06/22/2004 3:59:09 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl

If the Cineplex at our local mall brings it in, I'll put forth a "Shop DOWNTOWN" program for beyond Christmas this year. I intend to make EVERYONE pay if they don't speak up about that lard-o-bastard's "film" coming in, regardless whether they're closest or furthest in space from the theatre.

13 posted on 06/22/2004 4:03:58 AM PDT by Wondervixen (Ask for her by name--Accept no substitutes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl

Boy, you've just got to love Hitch. He has a way with words that no one, except maybe Steyn, comes close to. He's also an independant thinker. Half of his columns make me so mad I'm throwing stuff at my monitor and the other half make me think he's a genius. And I can live with that - at least he's not a cool-aid drinker and calls them as he sees them. Nobody cuts up a pompous, egotistical elitist better than Hitchens. Rave on.

14 posted on 06/22/2004 5:44:42 AM PDT by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joebuck

Yeah. I think Hitch has the last word on this one.

15 posted on 06/22/2004 6:30:49 AM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl

Bump for later.

16 posted on 06/22/2004 6:36:14 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

I'll bump too.

17 posted on 06/22/2004 6:40:52 AM PDT by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl

Thank you Christopher Hitchins (and GVgirl) for calling out Michael Moore for his lies. The crap that this a$$hole and his supporters have spewed needs to be debunked so that the independent voters don't get swayed. I hope that Moore tries to sue Hitchens for his honest effort to show the truth about Moore. I will certainly give to any defense fund.


18 posted on 06/22/2004 9:56:18 AM PDT by HowardLSmith.ô¿ô (Keep reminding everyone about the great economy resulting from Bush's programs!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl
"Don't pay money for this."

No sweat - I downloaded it last night off of KaZaa. If the MPAA / RIAA is right and downloading is ripping off the "artists," then I'm more than happy to rip off Michael Moore! ;-)

That said, the reason I downloaded it in the first place was because I wanted to see how big the lies to combat the "lies" of the administration are.

Suffice it to say, if that fat pig is even vaguely insinuating that Iraq was a peaceful country with prosperous, well adjusted people that Sadaam treated fairly, then I don't understand how ANYONE can take the McPig seriously.

Also, I love that he seems to think Saddam would never ever harm a hair on an American. Did he even remember the Persian Gulf War?

Man I just want to scream sometimes...especially at the thought that people are going to take this crap seriously!
19 posted on 06/22/2004 10:39:10 AM PDT by Jinjelsnaps ("Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana" - Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl
one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture

This phrase (at the end of the article) was worth reading the whole thing.

20 posted on 06/22/2004 11:06:01 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson