Skip to comments.Generating more heat than light - F9/11 is a despicable film, and Michael Moore is a despicable man.
Posted on 06/30/2004 11:22:02 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Let's get straight to it. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a despicable film, and Michael Moore is a despicable man.
I've spent considerable time decrying the often baseless attacks of today's political discourse, so I have a duty to back that up. Much of my work has already been done spectacularly by others. Writers and Web sites from coast to coast have obliterated such deceptive Moore assertions as:
President Bush was invalidly elected.
Key members of Osama bin Laden's family were allowed to escape FBI interrogation on a special flight before anyone else could fly (thanks to Moore hero Richard Clarke for exploding that whopper).
Baghdad was a peaceful, idyllic garden that was blasted to smithereens by an American attack that wantonly targeted the innocent.
These are the intentional misstatements of fact that elevate Moore to the apex of American political bigotry. He may be fond of deflecting criticism with the "It's just my opinion" defense, but that won't wash.
Do we excuse the racial or religious bigot just because it is someone's "opinion" that blacks are inferior or Jews are the devil's spawn?
Make no mistake. This is the same kind of pathological obsession. And as the days pass since I've seen this piece of garbage, something has arisen that is as disheartening as the film itself: the number of people suggesting it is a worthy element in a debate on the issues it addresses.
Reviewer after reviewer go into a disgusting swoon, offering goofy qualifiers like "the film may contain some contested assertions" and "fact-checking is not one of its strong suits," but often the conclusion is that Moore's work is important -- even enlightening.
It's enlightening, all right. It will enlighten you on the subject of how pathetic one hateful man can be as he seeks to berate people with whom he disagrees.
Just so you know, I am an equal-opportunity critic of reckless political screeds. When Arkansas crackpot Larry Nichols crafted a ridiculous piece of dreck called The Clinton Chronicles, I identified it as the kind of ham-handed muckraking that discredited the community of people (like me) who had a genuine interest in finding out where Bill Clinton's misdeeds began and ended.
Similarly, the Moore film runs the risk of making Bush critics and anti-war voices come off like mindless hacks. And it is very hard to find one of them who cares.
In fact, in a sickening irony, people who wish to be thought of as level-headed and deserving of high titles in leftist America are heaping praise on Fahrenheit as if it were valid political discourse.
Can you imagine what would have happened if one Republican campaign official or member of Congress had signed on to the far smaller Clinton Chronicles cottage industry? Embracing such tripe would have brought instant ridicule and banishment from any table of rational debate.
But Moore's smear is welcomed not just as art (which people may debate -- it certainly is not inept) but as analysis.
So let's examine Michael Moore as analyst. Continuing from the above list of defeated assertions, let's go to the eye-popping lie that Iraq had not attacked, killed or threatened any American.
Did Americans die in the Persian Gulf War? Do Americans visit Israel, where Saddam Hussein proudly financed suicide bombers? Were Americans at the controls of the jets fired on for years over Iraq's no-fly zones? Did Saddam not try to murder a former U.S. president?
The sugar-coating of an evil regime is one thing. The derision heaped on our troops is quite another.
Just over halfway through the movie, you are shown young soldiers in snippets that make them look like bloodthirsty, overzealous hooligans. This is the moment at which this film and this filmmaker leave the familiar company of those who are ill-informed and misguided and enter the realm of the contemptible.
From the sheer cruelty of its premise to the sheer stupidity of tactics like dogging congressmen to "sign up" their kids for the war, Moore had every right to make this movie and is entitled to every dime it rakes in.
He is also entitled to the proper scorn of millions of Americans.
Most despise him because he hates Bush and, whether he admits it or not, hates the troops and hates the country.
But the derision that he deserves even more will come from anyone of any political stripe who believes that viewpoints should be argued with attention to objectivity and decency, neither of which can be found on a single frame of this abominable film.
Mark Davis is a talk-show host on WBAP/820 AM. email@example.com
The film is libelous and borders on treason as a propaganda film. It seems a case could be made for suing Moore even if only to draw attention to it as controversial. That's what the liberals would do if the tables were reversed. Just not sure who would take it on. Certainly not Bush or the RNC.
works for me
Marc Davis used to do a Sunday show in Memphis and I miss him.
Cocerning this movie, I might watch it if it were free, but why should I as a conservative allow that Jabba Hutt to profit? It would only add to his coffers.
I won't be seeing it but the way you would do that is you purchase tickets to another movie, go into the theatre and then scoot into to view Moore's movie. This way you see it but he doesn't benefit financially.
As they have done with so many aspects of our society, the courts have made a mockery out of our libel and slander laws. By giving the broadest possible interpretation of the 1st Amendment free speech clause (as they did yesterday in the internet porn case) to the media (which includes arts and entertainment, not just news), the courts have made it all but totally impossible for any "public person" to win a libel or slander suit. And you'd be genuinely surprised how easy it is for anyone of us to become a "public person."
"...by giving the broadest possible interpretation of the 1st Amendement free speech clause ( as they did yesterday in the internet porn case)..."
I saw an explanation of this on Lehrer (broadcast in Australia)and couldn't believe my ears. The 'right of free speech' applies to pornography!
Words fail me.
Where have you been the last few decades? (In Australia?)
He also did a Sunday show braodcast out of San Fran on KSFO. I miss him also.
"Where have you been the last few decades? (In Australia?)"
Yes. I'm an Aussie. It's said we are 'behind the times' so I keep up to date via freerepublic. The matter of Berg's possible connection to Moore (or should I say, obvious?) goes way back...
...to the original research thread.
There are times I find certain aspects of US life, laws, constitition etc difficult to comprehend. For example, voting in Oz is compulsory...and we really do take free speech for granted. Our Press, although biased toward the Left( as most journalists are?) is unconstrained; no PC here!
Read this for an example:
Furthermore, we have a great newspaper, The Australian, established by Rupert Murdoch...an Aussie! Now a US citizen, I believe. Gave you Fox News.
I just heard this piece of propaganda is being distributed in the middle east? I believe this wanna be filmmaker should be tried for treason. I won't go see it at all ...Michael Moore and his type make me sick.
Any idea where he's originally from? I graduated from a S. Mississippi high school in 1971 with a Mark Davis, and he always struck me as someone who'd end up in journalism.
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004
If it weren't for having to gag the whole time while watching the movie I would buy a ticket or another film that plays at the same time and just sneak in to to Michael Moore's mockumentary
And the left hates him with a passion
I'd love to see him lose every penny he's got.
"And the left hates him with a passion."
You bet they do! I am delighted at Murdoch's success in the US. Truth wins. The Australian newspaper prints articles side by side written from both points of view.
Simple. The reader decides. Biased reporting is an insult.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of energy in a closed system is degraded irreversibly. Physical, chemical, and electrical energy transform into thermal energy --heat. Reversing the process, e.g., heat into physical energy, cannot fully occur within the system without an inevitable loss of energy in the form of irretrievable heat. Energy is not destroyed; it is merely unavailable for producing work. (The irreversible increase of this nondisposable energy in the universe is measured by the abstract dimension called entropy.)
clinton corruption is all about the irreversible degradation of the energy in our closed system. A leftist band of heat-producing useful idiots are currently assisting in the clintons' $8-million--make that $20 million--revisionist assault. ...
Once we understand that the latter process is irreversible, we will begin to do what we must.