Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poor W (Michael Moore is so mean to the president)
Fairfield County weekly ^ | July 8, 2004 | Paul Bass

Posted on 07/22/2004 12:42:31 PM PDT by presidio9

That Michael Moore. He's amazing. With his blockbuster new movie Farenheit 9/11 , Moore did something I thought nobody could do. He made me feel sorry for George W. Bush.

You know, President George W. Bush. The cold-hearted faux cowboy who runs the country. The man who'll bomb cities, send thousands of American soldiers and Third World civilians to terrifying deaths, lie, endanger the lives of his own CIA agents, turn our nation's energy policy over to Enron, steal from the poor and hand the treasury to the super-wealthy, pick on gays, march record numbers of defendants to their deaths without giving them a fair trial, all just to settle scores or grab power and riches for himself and his friends.

Yeah. That guy.

Michael Moore doesn't like George W. Bush either. For the same reasons. Moore made his movie to try to convince millions of Americans to agree with us in time for the November presidential election.

I've delighted in Michael Moore's talent since the days he published the country's best alternative newspaper, the Michigan Voice , back in the early '80s. Moore's new movie is the ultimate alt-weekly hatchet job translated to the silver screen, a film that skewers a rich, powerful villain with humor and pathos, with embarrassing pictures and telling quotations and in-depth research woven into a passionate argument.

So like any good alt-weekly reporter, I rushed to see Fahrenheit 9/11 . I cracked up. I cheered. I followed the flood of data pinning Bush and his family to terrorists and nefarious oil companies. I felt smarter and more virtuous than the creep at the center of the story. I exulted that the film would ignite outrage in the souls of movie-goers across the country.

But something gnawed at me.

I watched scenes I'd read about in reviews, of Bush and his aides getting ready for the cameras before making grave declarations about the Iraq war. In one, Bush was supposedly making jokes and silly faces seconds before announcing the bombing. That supposedly revealed him to be an insincere goofball who pretends to take seriously the launching of massive violence but really couldn't care less. He may very well be that kind of guy. I'd put money on it. But on screen I saw someone who merely looked uncomfortable, under pressure, moments before making a big speech to a worldwide audience.

It felt like a cheap shot.

So did Moore's dwelling on the "42 percent" of working days Bush spent on "vacation" in the months before 9/11. This suggested, among other things, that a) Bush otherwise might have read briefing papers warning of the attack; and b) he'd been flailing and failing in his job, so he needed a crisis to rescue his presidency.

I knew that the Washington Post article on which Moore based his claim used the same number. But the 42 percent counted days that Bush spent away from the White House. You can work away from the White House. All presidents have done that. They broker international peace agreements at their retreats, for instance. (Well, some do. Not Bush.) Moore's own footage shows in passing that Bush met British Premier Tony Blair at his ranch. That's working.

Sure, Bush spends lots of time golfing. He has fun. So did lots of presidents. Is that a crime? He doesn't pull all-nighters like Bill Clinton. He has a more traditional CEO style: disciplined meetings, heavy reliance on trusted aides. We can despise his choice of aides. We can despise his decisions. We can detest what he and Tony Blair decide while they're working. We may prefer bosses who involve themselves in more details of decisions. But "vacations" didn't prevent Bush from reading briefing papers. Nor does his working style prove his presidency was in trouble. In fact, I don't think it was.

A having-it-both-ways feeling continued nudging its way into my delight during the film, like ants crawling around a box full of popcorn. Here was Moore attacking Bush for not pursuing Osama bin Laden intensely enough. Yeah! For not waging a more devastating offensive in Afghanistan. Score!

But wait. Michael Moore implying that the U.S. should have fought a bloodier war? He--and we--didn't sound like that in 2002. Why do we now? Just to tar Bush?

Is this the way to lead a charge to unseat a dishonest, insincere, scapegoating president? Is our hatred for a hateful president turning us into haters, too?

Such questions haunted me as I debated the film with my chums.

My friends pointed out that you can't equate Moore's techniques with the Bushies'. Plus, he's not attempting to ascend to power; he's a critic, not a wannabe politico. The Bushies have power. Bush supporters this year doctored an old photo of John Kerry to make it appear he was seated next to Jane Fonda at a Vietnam war protest. Then they e-mailed the photo to millions of voters. That's not just misleading. That's 1984 stuff. In the hands of rulers, such tactics are the route to fascism. The Bushies have attacked our constitutional freedoms in the name of protecting us.

Moore, meanwhile, didn't fabricate anything. His facts were on the money, as a review of the film's assertions by The New York Times ' Philip Shenon, who covered the 9/11 commission, bore out. He did use those facts to make some lazy and disingenuous arguments.

Still, that's different from lying or killing or brutalizing innocent populations. Outsiders' agitprop--filmmaking that goes over the line--is not the same as OK'ing the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

More important, Moore performs a service. The film resonates because it reports in an accessible way material that even the alternative press glosses over. Moore shows us chilling footage of brutal American soldiers revved by a song whose chorus yells, "Burn motherfucker!" He produces footage of Marine Corps recruiters lying to and misleading inner-city kids with little hope. Equally powerfully, he shows once-duped soldiers who refuse to continue killing for no good reason. He shows a patriotic, conservative mom who wrestles with the evil that led to her son's death in uniform in Iraq.

Those are powerful, legitimate tools in Moore's cinematic hands. They shock us out of the somnolence that enables us to ignore the massive evil perpetrated by our government in our name. We need that shock treatment. Moore's a master at it.

But the cheap shots? The disingenous, manipulative arguments? The resorting to personal hatred and humiliation?

That doesn't make Michael Moore the left-wing version of George W. Bush. (Lee Atwater, maybe.) I'm glad he made this blockbuster, in most ways terrific, movie. But I still worry about the slippery slope: In our urgency to depose the Bushies, do we risk becoming just a little too much like the villains onscreen?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: lovesbillyjeff; potsmoker; propaganda; worshipthepig
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: presidio9
filmmaking that goes over the line--is not the same as OK'ing the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Or pulling completely fabricated charges out of thin air, right?

Are most writers for "alternative" papers (which, I think means papers that survive from selling advertising space primarily to transvestite massage parlors and abortion clinics) this childish?

21 posted on 07/22/2004 12:55:12 PM PDT by jscd3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

All things aside... even a guy as whacked out as this author realizes that Mickey Moore's movie is a steaming pile of Harkin.


22 posted on 07/22/2004 12:55:54 PM PDT by kevkrom (My handle is "kevkrom", and I approved this post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jscd3
Are most writers for "alternative" papers (which, I think means papers that survive from selling advertising space primarily to transvestite massage parlors and abortion clinics) this childish?

From what I've read, yes. They're targeted toward the young and stupid, and yet somehow fail to acheive that high of a standard. (I've only ever read them for local entertainment listings and to laugh at the personals.)

23 posted on 07/22/2004 12:57:28 PM PDT by kevkrom (My handle is "kevkrom", and I approved this post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I have a few problems with these statements.

1) He doesn't pull all-nighters like Bill Clinton.
2) Bush supporters this year doctored an old photo of John Kerry to make it appear he was seated next to Jane Fonda at a Vietnam war protest.
3) The Bushies have attacked our constitutional freedoms in the name of protecting us
4) Moore, meanwhile, didn't fabricate anything. His facts were on the money, as a review of the film's assertions by The New York Times ' Philip Shenon, who covered the 9/11 commission, bore out.
5) Still, that's different from lying or killing or brutalizing innocent populations. Outsiders' agitprop--filmmaking that goes over the line--is not the same as OK'ing the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
6) He shows a patriotic, conservative mom who wrestles with the evil that led to her son's death in uniform in Iraq

1) Yeah, but Bill clinton was pulling all-nighters with interns, not heads of state!
(Hehe hehe, he said "Head")

2) Uhm, I saw a photo with Kerry, and Fonda was in the background - I never saw a "doctored" photo, and didn't hear anything about a photo being altered, until this article.

3) How did the Bushes attack our constitutional freedoms? This is just a statement, and we're to accept it as fact? I don't think so - back it up with proof, ya know, something like "Bush sequested an Army division in my house without approval, and let the CIA search my house and home without a warrant"! I mean, jiminy crickets, Batman, this guy is loony!

4) WHAT?? You yourself stated early that Moore's claim Bush was on vacation 42% of the time was wrong - and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Check the bible, call your pastor/preacher/church leader, and ask them - they'll tell you: A lie of omission is STILL A LIE. Moore OMITTED facts and generally misled the viewing public.

5) Where is the proof President Bush PERSONALLY OKAYED the humiliation of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib? There is none. (And let's call it what it is, it's not torture, noone is deformed, permanently scarred from what went on there - at least to my limited knowledge)

6) I had no idea Saddam Hussein is in this movie. That's the EVIL that led to this woman's sons death. Let's remember that little FACT, shall we?


24 posted on 07/22/2004 12:59:14 PM PDT by Ro_Thunder (Sarcasm? That's humor lost on anyone but yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Puke alert on this article. Where has this putz been pretending that Democrats are above the kind of hate he accuses Bush of and based on what? Bush if anything has been too kit gloves with the Venomcrats. The Democrats have taken partisan hatred to an art form. I don't know what rock this brainless punk has been hiding under that deludes him into thinking it is Republicans, not the partisan extremist Bush bashers, that are the haters. Crimeny, Moore's film is emblematic of the utter mindlessness of Democratic hatred.

"Moore, meanwhile, didn't fabricate anything."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This guy has got to be kidding! There is little that Michael Mooreon DID NOT fabricate. Crud, Moore claimed the Bin Laden family was allowed to fly by Bush. WRONG. Richard Clarke, the darling of the Democrats, gave that order. Moore claimed it occured BEFORE the lifting of the post 9-11 flight ban. WRONG! It occured on September 20th, AFTER the ban was lifted. Read below for more on what Mooreon didn't fabricate.

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.


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.


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 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.

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


25 posted on 07/22/2004 1:01:29 PM PDT by MikeA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Boy. Bass can lay it on thick.

But, in the end, Bass needn't feel sorry for GW.

GW has respect for his God, for himself and for others. Bush is willing to do that part of his job that includes protecting the people who depend on him.

Moore is the one whom Bass should pity.

26 posted on 07/22/2004 1:01:56 PM PDT by syriacus (WJC escapes personal blame by blaming his demons. Will WJC agree to see an exorcist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Enough room for his head and all his queer friend's chowder.


27 posted on 07/22/2004 1:03:18 PM PDT by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
In our urgency to depose the Bushies, do we risk becoming just a little too much like the villains onscreen?

They became villians so long ago, my great grand mother (God rest her soul) can not remember a time when they weren't.

28 posted on 07/22/2004 1:07:45 PM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Mind you, this paper - the Fairfield County Weekly really is among the worst loony-left liberal rags you're ever going to see. It hates everything conservative, loathes everything republican, and truly despises George W. Bush with a white hot flame.

This article almost leans too far to the right for this paper.

Little wonder this paper is free... they couldn't sell this crap.

29 posted on 07/22/2004 1:08:10 PM PDT by Legion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Is our hatred for a hateful president turning us into haters, too?

Kinda answered your own question there, didn't you, pal?

30 posted on 07/22/2004 1:15:50 PM PDT by Buggman ("You can't tell a deaf Chinaman anything by whispering in French." --Protagoras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Let's apply his analysis to Clinton, including - as does the author - things suspected but not definitely proven: Clinton, a man who raped, lied before a grand jury, dropped bombs on civilians without risking our own soldiers, misled the country about the reasons for war, entered business partnerships with convicted felons, transferred sensitive technology to China, secured huge foreign contracts for Enron, sexually harrassed and threatened female subordinates, sent the IRS after political opponents, hired private investigators to dig up dirt on federal prosecutors, committed serial adultery, leaked secret grand jury testimony to the press and blamed it on prosecutors, participated in fraudulent real estate transactions, misused confidential FBI files for political purposes, etc.


31 posted on 07/22/2004 1:18:29 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Legion

It appears the whole point of this journalistic rant was to let everyone know that Mr. Bass hates, hates, hates, just like Michael Moore, what a perfect twosome!


32 posted on 07/22/2004 1:20:38 PM PDT by Maumee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Legion
This article almost leans too far to the right for this paper.

Its a shame that I can't find the response letters online. In the print edition there were two people taking issue with the author for having any sympathy for that madman Bush (who stole the election). I guess they don't have "/sarcasm" flags in alternative newspapers.

33 posted on 07/22/2004 1:21:29 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
These people are sooooooo far gone. If I hear one more piece of garbage either make Moore out to be a god or make Bush out to be the devil, I think I will slug them. They are conjouring up a hatred, but not the hatred that they are aiming for. I am getting sick of these fools painting the picture that conservatives are brainless simpletons just waiting for the next message from our brainless leader, Mr. Bush.

Fascist? Come on. Clinton pulled all-nighters? Maybe with his cigars. Moore did not fabricate anything? Oh my!

We may prefer bosses who involve themselves in more details of decisions

AAAAAAHHHHHHHH?
34 posted on 07/22/2004 1:24:52 PM PDT by Eagle of Liberty (There are two Americas and one of them is severely losing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jscd3

When people say bad things about our, President Bush. I know they have taken too, many tokes off the democratic crack pipe. Bush/Cheney 2004


35 posted on 07/22/2004 1:29:53 PM PDT by No Surrender No Retreat (These Colors Never Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Where's the 'Babbling Idiot' alert?


36 posted on 07/22/2004 1:33:39 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notforprophet; Registered
Hope the heck they don't find out about Registered's DNC's illustrated program for the klan meeting in boston.
37 posted on 07/22/2004 1:40:55 PM PDT by dts32041 (Gen Karpinski A bullet, A Gun, a Room, her only honorable solution (MP Officer Not))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Even fish write articles now.


Paul Bass

38 posted on 07/22/2004 2:19:16 PM PDT by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Let's analyze just one paragraph

The cold-hearted faux cowboy who runs the country.
Faux cowboy....ad hominem attack. No value.

The man who'll bomb cities
As distiguished from what president since Carter?

send thousands of American soldiers and Third World civilians to terrifying deaths
Oh yeah, they left is so broken up about our "thousands" of military deaths, when they arent wishing for more so Bush looks bad.

lie
Put up or shut up, document a lie.

endanger the lives of his own CIA agents
Prove it. Even if having her name in the paper endangered her life (which apparantly it hasnt) prove Bush leaked it.

turn our nation's energy policy over to Enron
Well, Enron was crooked for sure, but they pretty much unraveled before W took office. Another pointless, provably false attack.

steal from the poor and hand the treasury to the super-wealthy
Because cutting taxes for everybody somehow steaks from the poor...

pick on gays
Gay Marriage ammendment. Well, that does target gays because activists managed to get a handful of judges with delusions of grandeur to circumvent our constitutional process.

march record numbers of defendants to their deaths without giving them a fair trial
Document one case where Bush denied someone a trial and had him executed. Nonsense. Document one case where a trial was held and Bush passed a sentence of execution. Never happened. If the verdict is guilty and the sentence is death in a fair trial in which Bush has no role, how is he responsible either way? Ah, because he doesnt overturn the lawful will of a jury. He's Hitler alright.

all just to settle scores or grab power and riches for himself and his friends.
Whatever.

39 posted on 07/22/2004 3:54:22 PM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
He doesn't pull all-nighters like Bill Clinton.

bwahaha! no, he DOESN"T PULL ALL-NIGHTERS LIKE THE WEASEL KING!!

40 posted on 07/22/2004 4:27:47 PM PDT by wildwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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