Skip to comments.Unfairenheit 9/11
Posted on 06/21/2004 4:25:32 PM PDT by The Raven
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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
I haven't seen it.
But it's named "9/11"
does Moore try to explain why the terrorists attacked us on 9/11? Play videos of Osama's speeches?
Or like Columbine, is the thesis ignored to make different points?
He lies....it's a Hitler-like propaganda film
Moore didn't gather facts and come to a conclusion. He came to a conclusion and then gathered facts that proved his convictions. His leftwing, anti-American, Bush hating convictions.
Like Rush said. Michael Moore is the modern day incarnation of Joseph Goebbels.
I suspect he is right, which is why I tend to hope that lots of swing voters (1) see the film, but then (2) find out how thoroughly Moore has sought to deceive them. Could well boomerang on the left and push a few percentage points over to Bush.
Imagine how the media would "greet" an otherwise similar film trying to pick on Kerry instead of Bush. Good lordy.
Well, he sure put Hitchens in a tizzy. Read the article.
Hitchens notes Moore pulls out this moldy oldy:
"3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests."
Which is funny, because it drops the "War for Unocal" line that was touted in 2001, merely to mention some Taliban guys talked about a pipeline (for Pakistan, BTW.) So?
I like Hitchen's martyred rabbit comment - if you saw Roger & Me.
but this is not atypical for the white liberal elitist. They're still putting out the line that there were disproportionate casualties in Vietnam, which was untrue racially, though true economically - due to their own abilities to get out of the draft, not the design of the US govt.
The movie sounds like a riot.
BUMP to finish later. Fascinating read so far. Hitchens absolutely slaughters Moore.
Having seen a trailer for Fahrenheit 9/11, and having observed the average teenager reaction to scenes in the execrable Saved!, I do not hope that many "sheeple" see Moore's film. That's the first time I've ever used that word "sheeple" in earnest.
If Michael Moore had his way, Wesley Clark would be president.
Now THERE'S moral equivalence.
Thanks for the post. A long article but well worth reading.
great article. try to save it.
I wouldn't even call Michael Moore a scumbag. I think that would be highly insulting.....to scumbags.
"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."
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 StatesAnd 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.
Isikoff was just on O'Reilly's show talking about an upcoming issue of Newsweek in which he takes Moore to task for playing loose with the facts. Aside from the misrepresentations made about the Saudi flights out of the US after 9/11, Isikoff also takes issue with the Carlysle/Bush cabal, pointing out that GW cancelled one of the most lucrative Carlysle contracts...something extremely rare in this post 9/11 world. If Moore is going to sue everybody who attacks his movie, he's going to be a very busy man-boy.
So,the darling of Hollywood and the Democrat Party believes that Osama is innocent until proven guilty.
I wonder if the Democrats will put that in their party platform at the convention.
Point of the first: Mr. Moore, having caught your act twice now, you are intentionally, personally, repugnant. I think perhaps you are trying to cash in on the minority/oppressed/disabled list, but I do not see piggish lack of manners as a DSMIV recognised disability, though that is subject to change at a moment's notice.
Does make a body wonder why I work 2 jobs plus to keep body and soul together and this turd with two feet probably has more money than I will ever see.
My congratulations to Ray Bradbury, who is sueing Mr. Moores' slovenly ass off for ripping his title from the 60's.
I was sweating reading this. Moore is pummled into a thick soup.
Thanks for the SCHADENFREUDE bump...this is hilarious.
I am not sure which I enjoyed more...this or the NY Times review of Bills book.
If he's forced to change the name, he could always call it what it is: Unfair-n'-hype 9/11
Don't look for Hitchens to be interviewed about this film on any lib "fairminded" tv talk show. Moore continues to get the fawning treatment from a succession of lib toadies and fellow travelers. Dissenters from the Lets-get-rid-of-Bush movement will not be asked questions.
Sheeple also watched the German films "Triumph of Der Will" and "The Eternal Jew". Michael Moore's film should be discussed in relation to these works of propaganda.
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.
The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
I am not sure which I enjoyed more...this or the NY Times review of Bills book.
Maybe if enough FReeper mail him the link or article he would read it. He does acknowledge that he has since learned of the lies in Bowling For Columbine:
The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.
In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.
Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.
Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies.
Great Hitchens article.
This and David Horowitz' latest are just what the doctor ordered.
Could you "Berg list" this one?
The left doesn't like to learn of Ray Bradbury's politics.
Isn't this an excellent article? I have been angry at Christopher Hitchens, but there is no doubt that he absolutely skewers Moore in this piece.
"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."
That says it all.
(Attn: Mr. Hitchens - I'll forgive your anti-Reagan tear a couple weeks ago. You obviously got better ice cubes this week. That being said, I say "Brilliant, Sir!")
By the way folks - read ALL of this. It is a devastatingly-accurate recitation of the facts!
Bravo Mr. Hitchens. When Christopher Hitchens takes on a liar and a phony he is simply the most devastating writer alive.
When he takes shots at people like George Will, he is amazingly ineffective and weak.
In general when he speaks as a leftist, attacking the right, his writing his thin and his argument lacks force. When he attacks the left his writing is passionate and powerful. I think some deep part of his soul senses the evil and dishonesty of leftist ideology. I wish like David Horowitz he could make a clean break with left wing thinking.
It would be so nice to have such a powerful voice with us on most of the issues, not just some of the issues.
Another Berg/Moore ping for tonight!
Kosovo has been cleansed. Of Serbs.
And, so far as annexation's concerned, it was always part of Serbia. Still is. Technically...
Man, that was absolutely scathing. Let Lumpy chew on that for a while.
I'm sure he'll offer no substantive debate on any of the points Hitchens raises. He's simply not up to it.
This is LONG, and exerpts do it absolutely no justice, because you can just feel the rage increasing with every word. Hitchens is a lefty, but he is one who will stand against those who are dishonest.
Wow. I have never seen such a through and complete debunking of a film...
The closest we came to totalitarianism was our "peculiar institution." But then, it was called "peculiar" for a reason.
Easy now. I think Moore is part of the movement to bring mentally handicapped people into the work force. You know, like the special olympics but they get paid.
Except that Goebbels possessed human intelligence, while Moore tops out at animal cunning.
After all the Reagan slams, this article puts Hitch back on my good side.
Yep. The day will come when Hitchens finally comes clean with himself intellectually and admits that he belongs on the right. Camille Paglia too. It must be terribly hard, however, to realize that one was full of sh*t, and passionate about it, for many years...
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.