Posted on 10/23/2004 2:00:54 AM PDT by AnimalLover
Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & Selling the American Empire Outspoken 'Hijacking' calmly takes aim at Bush
Release Date: 2004
Ebert Rating:
Roger Ebert / Oct 14, 2004
I have here a commentary by John Eisenhower, son of the late president, who states in the Manchester Union-Leader that for the first time in 50 years he plans to vote for the Democratic candidate for president. "The fact is that today's 'Republican' Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar," he writes, citing its $440 billion budget deficit and unilateral foreign policy. The current administration, he says, "has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance."
That is essentially the same argument made in "Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear and the Selling of American Empire," the most outspoken and yet in some ways the calmest of the new documentaries opposing the Bush presidency. It charges that America is in the hands of radicals at the right-wing extreme of the Republican Party. This view has some backing among traditional conservatives; none other than Patrick Buchanan has founded a magazine, The American Conservative, to argue against Bush and the war in Iraq.
For the neo-cons, the movie says, the invasion of Iraq has been a goal since the early 1990s, and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, called the "intellectual force" of the group, chillingly wrote in a 2000 report that it would be hard to sell a pre-emptive strike to the American people, unless a "catastrophic event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" made it seem necessary. Immediately after 9/11, he and his associates argued for an attack on Iraq, making a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that has now been proven false, and claiming Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which we now know he did not.
"Hijacking Catastrophe" essentially consists of a parade of talking heads, all of them arguing that the Bush administration is more radical than most Americans realize. To be sure, the movie only tells one side. There are no defenders of the administration, and some of the speakers are well-known left-wing critics such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Mailer and Daniel Ellsberg. Others are more centrist, including Lt. Col. Karen Kwaitkowski (Ret.), an Air Force staff officer at the Pentagon, retired Army Special Forces sergeant Stan Goff, weapons inspector Scott Ritter and Nobel laureate Jody Williams.
What they do is look at the camera and talk. Although the film is only 76 minutes long, it's so intense that it seems longer, and a point comes when I half-wished the filmmakers would relent and give us some of that goofy Michael Moore stuff. In urgent sound bites of mounting alarm, they charge that the neocon insurgents envision an "American colossus" that stands "astride the world," makes its own policies and disdains cooperation with the family of nations. We went into Iraq without U.N. backing not because we had to, the movie argues, but because we wanted to; it was a good way to weaken the organization. By the same token, budget deficits are useful because they will bankrupt programs such as Social Security and Medicare that the neo-cons oppose but cannot destroy through conventional legislation.
Well, that's what the movie says, and a lot more. As your correspondent, I report it. And I will receive e-mails from readers who will protest this review and tell me a movie critic has no business getting involved in politics. But here is the movie, and here is what it says. That there are no pro-Bush documentaries this season is curious, but true. I have been asking for two months to see a film named "Michael Moore Hates America," but the filmmakers have not provided it.
The most difficult aspect of "Hijacking Catastrophe" is to accept the argument that the neocons have wanted to invade Iraq for years, as part of a plan to conquer and occupy the Middle East, and that is why 9/11 inspired their curious decision to deflect American power from bin Laden to Saddam, an uninvolved bystander. Why does this make me think of Larry punching Curly, who retaliates by punching Moe? Fear of terrorists provided their cover, and Norman Soloman of the Institute for Public Accuracy says Roosevelt's statement "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" has been rewritten by the neocons and their Orange Alerts into "the only thing we have to fear is not enough fear."
It is an ancient debating technique to identify your opponent's ideas with similar statements by evildoers. Nevertheless, this movie opens with a quote that seems eerie in its relevance:
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering said that at the Nuremberg trials.
Cast & Credits
Narrated by Julian Bond. With Daniel Ellsberg, Karen Kwaitkowski, Noam Chomsky and Norman Mailer.
Immediate Pictures presents a documentary directed by Sut Jhally and Jeremy Earp. Running time: 76 minutes. No MPAA rating.
Has anyone heard of it?
Oh, that "centralist" Scott Ritter is back eh?
Where's a Burger King when you need one...
Soros and Move-On.bored must have thrown tons of cash at any idiot freshman film major with a camera and daylight.
Daniel Ellsburg? I thought he was dead.
On top of that, it appears to have been out since July, and is already being hawked on DVD.
I think we can safely ignore this one.
Gee, shouldn't they be sued for showing such things right before the election? /sarcasm
I am so appalled by all of the anti American's we have in this country, because that is exactly what they are.
Of course, sometimes those saying these things are entirely correct. This charge accurately describes Churchill's activities throughout the 30's.
When you suck on a penis too long, you become Ebert.
Cameo appearences with Usama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Atilla the Hun, Godzilla and Frankenstein.
Children under 12 admission is free. Endoctrination materials available upon request. All rights reversed.
Again, Roger Ebert displays his (leftist) politics in
a movie review. While completely entitled to have an
opinion like this, it FURTHER demonstrates how Ebert
is actually the official Salon.com film reviewer
occupying an office at the the Chicago Sun Times.
Here, Ebert quotes John Eisenhower, son of the late
president, to qualify this 'documentary,' saying
(Bush) "has confused confident leadership with hubris
and arrogance." And also: "For the neo-cons, ... the
invasion of Iraq has been a goal since the early 1990s"
and the plan is "to conquer and occupy the Middle East."
Why did he stop here? Why not accuse the Bush
administration of it's own "burning down of the
Reichstag," as so many people like to compare the
President with Hitler.
As expected, the usual suspects are in the film,
most notably Noam Chomsky, however Ebert claims that
there are also "centrists" such as Scott Ritter.
Scott Ritter ?!? * more on that burger-king-happy-meal
for another article *
Ebert has, apparently, been receiving e-mails on his
political movie reviews in the past. While I DOUBT that
Ebert will be let go in the same fashion as Ted Rall
from Men's Health Magazine * see Ted Rall - Pat
Tillman * it is still in bad form to allow this
"Political Hack who is 'hurting America' " to go on
with out letting him know how many of us are truly
disgusted at Ebert's "hubris."
Ebert whines that the promised move "michael moore
hates America" has yet to be seen by his royal self.
I would suggest that he rent FAHRENHYPE 9/11, if he
wanted to give the other side equal time. Here, also,
there is NO "goofy Michael Moore stuff" as Ebert wants,
just a damming reply to Moore's garbage.
Lastly, Ebert ~somewhat legitimately~ states that there
are no "Pro-Bush documentaries" out there. Strange,
that we have to make a "pro Bush documentary" in an
attempt to balance the 'political documentary field,'
but inTHIS case, I would agree. There is no conservative
equivalent to the "daily show," as an example, and if
there is a "huge right-wing conspiracy" as Hilliary
says, then they are dropping the ball, big time.
... unless, there IS NONE.
I love this... "Neocons are ultra-right wingers....but they're not truly Conservative". The script is out.
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.