"As he presents himself as America's savior" Is this a quote from him? If so I would like to know from where. I don't see him saying this and seems like this is how you have chosen to views his actions/self-representation.

Moore has consistently ridiculed Americans as being stupid in his speeches overseas. The implication here is obviously that Moore's NOT the stupid one, as he's smart enough to point out our alleged stupidity. His presentation of the movies and his attitude portray a consistent, smarmy self righteous tone that make his implications ABUNDANTLY clear.

In short, no Moore didn't explicitly say he was America's saviour. But he also didn't explicitly say that George Bush deliberately allowed the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01. But it is so heavily implied, it would take a rather dense individual to not see what he is saying.

I've never read someones writting so obviously misguided and venomous.

You've obviously never read any of Moore's books, have you?

"I don't think this move generated enough ticket sales to say that it fairly influenced more than a fringe minority" I didn't see the movie until a week ago. I was extremely surprised to see that it was still playing in a large screen at the playhouse and all but a handful of seats were filled. Moore wanted the movie to come out on DVD before elections but he is fighting an uphill battle. The reason? It's still making so much money in the theater that the producers refuse to release it.

OK, once again...at $100 million gross, that equates to about 14 million tickets; $200 million is 28 million tickets, and so on... Many of Moore's followers are seeing the movie multiple times. The math just doesn't work out to a majority of Americans viewing this movie, sorry.

I notice you came in as an anonymous user. Your response was vitriolic and extremely confrontative. I considered deleting your post, but felt that the argumentative nature of your post (as opposed to intelligent, rational argument), pretty much speaks for itself, so I left it as it is.

Is there some reason why an attack on Michael Moore affects you personally? Do we not have the same right and responsibility to investigate the credibility of Moore's arguments as we do to investigate the allegations against Bush? (remember, these allegations are not small allegations; if they were indeed all true, George W. Bush could well be guilty of treason, a capital offense. Do you not grant the president of the United States the same right to being "innocent until proven guilty" that is being afforded Scott Peterson at this very moment? If you do, that is indeed, an anti-American position).

I mostly just read stuff here on JU without replying to anything but I thought I would post on your thread because I found it interesting. As such,.. I don't know how to make myself non-anonymous. I assume I have to create an account or something but does it really matter that much to you to have some other user name that may as well be just as anonymous? Does it make it feel better to have a 'name' to direct your opinion to? You can call Me Jason.

I don't feel I was intentionally confrontational at all. If you have an issue with me asking you questions regarding your post then I have to assume you must have only wanted to present your point of view rather then discuss it. Fair enough, thats what many bloggers want and there is nothign wrong with it. However, since you have chosen to respond back to me, I can only assume you really do want to converse on some level.

So let's talk about what I said exactly.
Did I ever say the majority of American's saw the movie? All I said was that I just went to the movie and was surprised by the large number of people in the theater so late after it released. People re-watching or not, I was surprised. I didn't think it would last that long at all. I also stated that I knew Moore wanted it out on video sooner but that it was held in theaters to make some more money. See this article here --> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5511730/ and particularly this quote near the bottom "Moore said he had hoped to have “Fahrenheit 9/11” out on DVD before the November election, but that the film could continue to play in theaters through year’s end and into 2005." I saw a better artical pointing this out awhile back but I don't remember where it was. My apologizies.

I'm not sure how you interpret my original posting to say I think MOST American's have watched it or to even suggest that meant that to say they or I am pro-Moore because of it. Please point me to where I did. PLEASE. I actually walked out thinking the movie was 1)interesting 2) funny 3) very politically slanted to the left 4) obviously took some things out of context. 5) should be taken with a grain of salt.

Despite how I feel about it, how many Americas watch it or are swayed one way or another by it, you have to recognize that a number of sources rate it as the most successful documentary ever. That's just what the news reports, not what "I" am reporting. If you really want, I'll dig up the links but I'm sure you can find it for yourself if you really wanted.

Moving on to some of your questions:
-----Is there some reason why an attack on Michael Moore affects you personally?
What did I say that came across as taking it personally? Was it my comments about Ann Coulter? Please, quote me, pull it directly from my post and show me where I was taking things personally? I apologize for any misunderstanding, but I can't help but wonder if your so galvanized against leftist comments that you too easily lash out against anything that "might" be percieved as criticism.

---Do we not have the same right and responsibility to investigate the credibility of Moore's arguments as we do to investigate the allegations against Bush?
Absolutely. And I have the right to do the same about your allegations as well. But to the point: your original post was op-ed. There are no factual representations nor any refrences to other factual representations. Things are not fact because you say so. You must provide refrences or some other factual evidence. Without it, your piece is op-ed. That's not a problem by any means. I only asked you for clarification on the opinions you did give and for pointers to examples of your claims against Moore. How is this being so vitriolic and extremely confrontative? Are your readers not permited to challenge your assertions?

----Do you not grant the president of the United States the same right to being "innocent until proven guilty" that is being afforded Scott Peterson at this very moment?
What single thing did I say Bush did wrongly? What single comment about validity or justification of representations in the movie did I put in my reply? I never said a thing! I never said Moore was right. I never said Bush was wrong. The only thing remotely 'leftist' I said was against Ann Coulter. How in the name of God does that show support for Moore or any other leftist thinking? Please, explain it to me. Or maybe you can explain it to me where else in my reply I showed my leftist Moore loving tendency.

Regarding Moore as the saviour. I have never read any of his comments that would suggest it. I really don't care about his writtings enough to go and read them. Interesting or not, I see him as being very politically biased and I just don't have enough interest to go out and spend time reading his stuff. As such, I don't support or refute his writtings because I have no idea what they are. When I asked for pointers to where he said things like this, it's because I really want to know, not because I am suggesting they don't exist. I wish you would have pointed to some of the writtings online you refer to because it's difficult to measure the weight of your argument without it. (that in mind, I'll post some of my favourite Ann Coulter stuff I found below).

I think a person anywhere in the world can be very smart but "people" collectively do stupid things. Thats not an American thing, thats not a French thing. I think its just a human thing. People often do stupid stuff in groups, including myself. I can think of more then one embarrasing memory from my days. Does it make me seem aloof or arrogant because of my belief or view on this? I wonder if you think so because that seems like what your saying about Moore. It's one thing to say "people" can be stupid and do stupid things. It's another to so "those people do stupid things unlike me". Again, I have not read Moore saying this but would be interested to see where he did. It certainly puts him in a negative light if does indeed draw a clear distinction between himself and the stupid people. However, I still assert that pointing out stupidity doesn't necessarily mean you are saying you are better then them, especially when those comments are made about societies.

I would hope you have the interest to reply to each of my questions and not just the ones you pick and choose based on where you feel capable of answering strongly from your position. However, based on your earlier comments, I'll just have to sit and wait to see if simply just delete my whole post, although, I hope you actually reply.



------My Ann Coulter favs-----
From her DNC speach
"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling. "

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

OK, first as to the ann acoulter favs...I'm not going to respond to that; we agree on her, ok? lol

Second, as to the anonymous posting, we've had several that have been little more than snipes. Frankly, most of your argument is well presented even if we do not agree. I think you would be an asset as a blogger on here, and wouldn't mind seeing you toss your opinions into the fray. Now, onto the rest. My original gut reaction had a lot to do with the "misguided and venomous" comment. The rest I could easily place into the "agree to disagree" category.

Yes, this is an op/ed piece. I never represent my views as anything but. Even some of the most well presented "facts" presented to the exclusion of one side of the story, turn out to be op/ed.

The chief problems I have with Moore are his intense disrespect of the American public, and his penchant for intellectual dishonesty. As to the former, he has made repeated comments about the stupidity of Americans (not "some" Americans, not "the American right (or left)", but "Americans. These quotes can be easily found, in context, on most of the better news websites.

As to the latter, he used a whole lot of half truths in the making of this film. Again, there are many well documented sites that categorically address the half truths and untruths of Moore's statement. My personal favorite is spinsanity.com, as they are balanced in their attack on both the right and the left (as a libertarian, I don't clearly fall into either category).

I'm not sure how you interpret my original posting to say I think MOST American's have watched it or to even suggest that meant that to say they or I am pro-Moore because of it. Please point me to where I did. PLEASE

You are right. You did not say this. You did, however, challenge my assertion that I didn't think it generated enough ticket sales to fairly say that it influenced more than a fringe minority already in Moore's camp. I, too, was well impressed by the ticket numbers until I met people who were compelled to see it five, six, seven times to "vote with their pocketbook". This is certainly their right, as it is their money; however, it leads me to question the actual numbers this movie is reaching.

What did I say that came across as taking it personally? Was it my comments about Ann Coulter? Please, quote me, pull it directly from my post and show me where I was taking things personally? I apologize for any misunderstanding, but I can't help but wonder if your so galvanized against leftist comments that you too easily lash out against anything that "might" be percieved as criticism.

It was the aforementioned comment about "misguided and venomous". I truly didn't feel it was misguided and venomous. Slanted, yes, but that's the nature of an op/ed piece.(again, we can agree on Coulter...lol).

How is this being so vitriolic and extremely confrontative? Are your readers not permited to challenge your assertions?

I apologize for the "vitriolic and extremely confrontative" comment. It was a gut reaction to the aforementioned.

OK, it's getting late, I will continue this discussion tomorrow. Hope the responses I have already given clear things up a bit.

Gideo MacLeish- AN *OBVIOUS* Bush supporter.

You're claiming that his film was disproved line by line on MooreWatch.com
What you forgot to say was that the 9/11 Commission Report Disproves what moorewatch.com says & generally agrees with Moore's accusations.

Have you seen the film?
If you haven't, you can't speak about it.
& you said a small minority saw the film? It's the highest grossing documentary EVER! Over $150 million in the US alone. THat's a BLOCKBUSTER in the entertainment business.

Also- I forgot to add, if you go to MM's site, he has MULTIPLE links, many government websites, to back up each & every line in the film.

Gideo MacLeish- AN *OBVIOUS* Bush supporter. You're claiming that his film was disproved line by line on MooreWatch.com What you forgot to say was that the 9/11 Commission Report Disproves what moorewatch.com says & generally agrees with Moore's accusations. Have you seen the film? If you haven't, you can't speak about it. & you said a small minority saw the film? It's the highest grossing documentary EVER! Over $150 million in the US alone. THat's a BLOCKBUSTER in the entertainment business.

You don't know jack from shit, Gideon is a Libertarian (like myself now) he hate's both Bush and Kerry. Check out moorelies.com Anonymous boy.
Half-truths and fast editing shall never equal the truth, and Fahrenhype 9/11 is being done as a rebuttal to Mikey's movie, which I will see both on Oct. 5th.

Anyways WHY in the HELL did you start up an old dead issue, damn can't you see the dates.

I shall shake the tree of supposed truth and may some day decide to become a truth teller in documentaries, but OH WAIT PEOPLE DON'T REALLY LIKE THE TRUTH.

Like Heart Disease is the NUMBER ONE cause of death in America, and you not pleading to Mikey to eat right and exercise, bringing his weight to a healthy level (I know he would still be chunky because he has a husky build) is just like you signing his death warrant.

Save the man, than save those who are dieing right now in the US, than save those who are dieing elsewhere, than save the planet, or try to do all at once and fail miserably.

This topic was dead and it should have stayed that way, if you wanted to make a point you should have started a new article PERIOD.

-GX

GX: I think I get what you're trying to say to anonymous here . . .



Am I reading you correctly?

Damn right Texas Wahine!

Moore cements people who would have voted for Kerry anyway, and alienates everyone else. I view with great doubt anyone that says "I was going to vote for Bush, but now that I have seen this movie I am going to vote for Kerry". It doesn't say much, it just plays on biases that the audience already has, like a cheap hypnotist. If you wanna believe his lies, you are already anti-Bush. If you aren't trying to believe them, then you'll see through them.

The question is not on people already decided to vote for Bush or Kerry. Now, the question is on the few swing voters. I think Moore actually hurt Kerry chance among swing voters because his attacks on Bush are all over the place, not very logical. On one hand, he said bin Laden is innocent and Taliban should never be attacked. On the other hand, he states that Bush decision to attack Iraq is wrong because he removes resources from Afghanistan which would be otherwise to capture bin Laden...... So Moore want to capture an innocent man?

Let me put it this way, Moore is overall viewed quite negative among American public. Maybe a bit like Al Sharpton in that regard. Al Sharpton is funny but his attacks on issues are all over the map too. Both men have a very loyal followers, but overall dislike by the mainstream.

For those of you wanting to address the accusations of Mikey the Madman, I got this article from Slate.com which I hear is a left leaning reporting agency. It addresses his accusations point by point and refutes them all. For some REAL bi-partisan refuting of Moore's points, see the 9/11 Commission Report. It is really excellent. (by the way, why was Moore seated with Pres. Jimmy Carter at the DNC? You cannot dissasociate Moore from the campaign when he is given such prominent respect and proximity to the Candidate and the Party) Anyway - without further delay... (Enjoy!!):

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

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.


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.

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.

Reply #22 By: Truth (Anonymous) - 9/23/2004 12:36:42 AM Gideo MacLeish- AN *OBVIOUS* Bush supporter. You're claiming that his film was disproved line by line on MooreWatch.com What you forgot to say was that the 9/11 Commission Report Disproves what moorewatch.com says & generally agrees with Moore's accusations.

Their report DOES NOT confirm *every thing* in the movie Only *certain* sections were confirmed, NOT the entire movie.

drmiler: you didn't use quotations!