Unfairenheit 9/11

msn ^ | June 21,2004 | Christopher Hitchens

[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.

>>>SNIP<<<

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.

[The Raven]

[Shermy]

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?

[The Raven]

He lies....it's a Hitler-like propaganda film

[Reagan Man]

It goes like this.

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.

[pogo101]

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability.

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.

[Shermy]

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.

[Shermy]

Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package.

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.

[randog]

BUMP to finish later. Fascinating read so far. Hitchens absolutely slaughters Moore.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I ... 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.

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.

[fhlh]

I love this comment about Mikal Moore quoting Orwell.... 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. This has got to be one of the best articles I've ever read from "The Slate".... are they making a right turn these days?

[Shermy]

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 his way, Wesley Clark would be president.

Now THERE'S moral equivalence.

[Randjuke]

Thanks for the post. A long article but well worth reading.

[bitt]

great article. try to save it.

[punster]

I wouldn't even call Michael Moore a scumbag. I think that would be highly insulting.....to scumbags.

[A Citizen Reporter]

Holy smokes! I had to turn my 'puter off for a few minutes to give it a chance to cool down after reading the whole Hitchens article!

"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."

[Huck]

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.

[Main Street]

[Boazo]

[Boazo]

[Boazo]