Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Bert:

You mentioned Christopher Hitchens comments about the Moore film, but you didnt really discuss them. They seem to me to be rather eloquent and well reasoned.

I’m left wondering what your thoughts are on Hitchens’ take on the movie. He goes after it pretty hard on a number of issues, such as how the accusation of Bush letting bin laden family members go falls flat in the face of Richard Clarke’s admission that he made that decision.

I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on what Hitchens had to say…..I’ll look forward to your next post.

People do a disservice to this movie by maintaining that Moore has to construct a Frontline-like case against Bush. I think Moores intent is not to be an investigative journalist, but rather a provacateur.

Also, I think the thing is that though Richard Clarke Okayed the flights for the Saudis certain questions go unanswered. Such as why? Because he was told to, and he had little reason to argue with them, Or of his own initiative? Also, that doesn’t knock down the more provocative of the allegations, that Bin Laden Family money was behind many of the failed business ventures, for example.

This becomes important because of another significant piece of information the Bush administration had blacked out in his released records: The name of the Bin Laden’s Financial consultant, James Bath.

There’s also no denying his family’s close relationship with the Saudis.

I think the question this movie raises most strongly is what kind of entanglements he has in taking the side of the Saudis, entanglements that would compromise his willingness to press them on things, get a little rough., or do things that might benefit us, but hurt the Saudis.

Joe,

Yes, I did read Hitchen’s lengthy, overblown and painstakingly misinterpretation of Moore’s film:

Unfairenheit 9/11-Christopher Hitchens

And, after he is finished bloviating about the evils of American Liberals and actually listing the main assertions of the film, he goes about pecking at the peripheries of these issues, which passes as a slam dunk in Conservative world.

For example, the fact that Clarke takes responsibility for green lighting the Saudi/Bin Laden flights in no way absolves Bush. Hitchens smugly ask how Clarke can be the Left’s hero of 9/11, after this revelation? The only way this ‘gotcha’ holds water, is if this decision was Clarke’s, and his alone.

So, in order for this accusation to be convincing, we now must assume Clarke was running a shadow government within the Bush administration, this being an example of national security decisions made independent of Bush’s approval.

The following is just one of the many unsubstantiated and unsourced charges he makes against Moore:

Moore has announced that he won’t even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning.

Moore has taken on most of his detractors, in detail, on his website. Where he describes one incident of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly leaving a screening early. Moore warned he would not go on his show, unless O’Reilly sat down for the remainder of the movie. Full disclosure: On the link-up interviews on the Friday opening, at the last minute, Moore decided to cancel his scheduled Fox interview spot.

For Moore’s direct response to questions on the Saudi/Bin Laden family flights from the movie:

Michael’s Latest News

Hitchens’ article:
… 33% an attack on Moore’s rhetorical style
… 33% attack on liberals in general
… 33% attack on Moore’s expressed opinions on the facts in the film (i.e., “Who’s your daddy?”)
… 1% refutation of the facts

-Cf

The best thing written about Moore’s movie so far, in my opinion, is this piece by a chef at Windows on the World in the WTC who lost friends that day and would have died himself if the attacks had happened an hour later.
It’s truly amazing.

Yes Martin,

That article is truly amazing! I’m guessing that by selecting the critical words of someone closely tied to the 9/11 tragedy, that would somehow prevent anyone from challenging its veracity. Well, the Republican’s politicizing the supposed motives of the 9/11 victim’s families criticism of the Bush administration, changed all that.

It is perfectly clear from reading the article, that the writer did not see the film. Maybe, that is why no specific claim from the film is cited. This is a written form version of the screed you can hear these days, on Conservative radio.

The 9/11 commission did not indict President Bush. According to the report, the president’s actions before, during and after the attacks are fully justified, including the military action in Iraq.

Huh? Is the 9/11 report out? So, which Commission member is the Special Prosecutor?

The base of his argument is that the Bush administration had strong ties with the bin Laden family. However, sound facts are conspicuously absent from this “documentary.”

Along with maintaining there was an Al Queda/Saddam relationship, is this what Fox News is reporting, too?

Yeah, Bert, the article by the Windows on the World employee Michael Niewodowski is quite preposterous.

> A similar commission in the 1940s would
> not have found a direct link between
> Hitler’s Germany and the attack on Pearl
> Harbor.

Um, how about the fact that Germany, Italy, and Japan had an openly declared alliance (the Tripartite Pact) for over a year? How about the fact that Germany declared war on the USA four days later? A silly accusation indeed.

> In the weeks and months following Pearl
> Harbor … the people of the nation did
> not waste a lot of time pointing fingers
> at each other.

Ha, that’s funny. In the weeks and months leading up to Pearl Harbor, isolationist appeasing Republicans continually opposed FDR’s desire to decare war on Germany and Japan. Germany had overrun France and had been bombing Britain for almost two years before Dec 7, 1941. After Pearl Harbor, there wasn’t a lot of finger pointing because the Republicans finally ran out of arguments against America going to war.

> According to the [9/11 Commission’s] report,
> the president’s actions before, during and
> after the attacks are fully justified,
> including the military action in Iraq.

The report, which as Bert points out is still unpublished, most likely will say almost nothing about the justification of the Invasion of Iraq. Mr. Niewodowski is making this part up out of thin air. It’s a complete fabrication.

> How would I explain to them that a film was
> made accusing the president and vilifying
> the soldiers,

Nowhere are soldiers vilified in the film. In fact, the soldiers in the film vilify the president.

Martin, this article you call “best thing written about Moore’s movie” is pretty pathetic. I feel bad for him losing his friends and colleagues, but he’s not very well informed about current events, America’s history, and in fact I don’t even see any evidence in the article that he had even seen the movie at all.

-Cf

In my opinion, Moore did vilify the soldiers. What makes it worse is that it was contradictory to other messages presented in the film. One of the most important observations to me was that the people who have the least in our system end up going to war to protect the very system that put them there in the first place. He also shows Lila Lipshcomb (sp?) saying she felt Americans who protested the war were slapping her and her son in the face.

Then in the same movie, he turns around and shows embarrassing footage of soldiers talking about listening to music to get them psyched up before going on raids and shows soldiers laughing around a dead Iraqi making stupid comments about his “boner.” While making moviegoers sympathize with Lila Lipshcomb, it’s almost as if he does the same thing (Just imagine if her son had been one of those soldiers, in footage before he died).

If we agree that to vilify is to degrade or disgrace (Webster’s), then I have to disagree when you say “Nowhere are soldiers vilified in the film.”

Sorry…a clarification. When I said in the previous post “While making moviegoers sympathize with Lila Lipshcomb, it’s almost as if he does the same thing.” I meant it’s almost as if Michael Moore is also slapping Lila Lipshcomb in her face.

Phil,

I’d have to say that, at first, I got the same impression that Moore was condemning and trying to embarrass our troops by showing that footage that equally disturbed me. However, taken into the full context of that section of the film, I think you missed his point.

Like a lot of Americans at home (me included), our soldiers went into Iraq with a clear, honorable, patriotic and critical goal - to disarm a madman who had the capability to wreck massive destruction on us and our allies, with very little warning. And, if that mission was exactly what we had expected and prevented from happening, your reaction to that scene would have been quite different.

In subsequent scenes, we see resigned, distraught and angry soldiers reacting to the reality, we now know as the truth. What I believe Moore was trying to portray, is that if this war was as noble and a necessity to our security, why did it not ultimately reflect in the morale of our soldiers?

The scenes in which soldiers behaved badly were, to me, merely a portrayal of how much pressure these troops are under, how very young they are, and how the overall top-to-bottom discipline isn’t as rigid as we might expect. It portrays an occupying force that is having a hard time doing their job.

It’s an important counter-image to the image we get from the mainstream media in which the soldiers are presented completely inaccurately, in which none are nervous, scared, angry (not even at the enemy), confused, tired, disorganized, or even the slightest bit dissheveled - they always are cleaned up first, and they always interview those soldiers who are articulate, handsome, and supportive of the President.

Yes, Moore showed and even got interviews with a couple of soldiers who were enraged and fired up to the point of a kind of sadism, such as the young man singing “burn, motherfucker, burn!”… but even those scenes humanized the troops to me: how else would a 19 year old kid who was sent to a guerilla war zone cope? Angry rap-metal music seems pretty understandable to me (that’s how I coped with high school).

In short, the footage in Moore’s film did not “vilify” the troops — it vilified the American press and it vilified the Bush Administration.

And, as Bert’s pointed out, the totality of the film is decidedly pro-troops. For every shot of American soldiers behaving badly, there are many others in which they come across as professional, experienced, determined, thoughtful, and as loving human beings. I came away from the movie with a significantly increased respect for the soldiers fighting in Iraq, seeing that they are not the brainwashed automatons that the Bush Administration, the American media, and the political right seem to always want to portray them as.

How someone can see the film and not also come away with an increased respect for the American troops is beyond me. Perhaps you live in a fantasyland where foul-mouthed troops don’t exist and where all soldiers love their President. I suspect that the perception that Fahrenheit 9/11 vilifies the troops is based on the jingoist propagandist idea that footage of soldiers must always always always portray them as superhuman perfect victorious heroes, and that any attempt to portray them as human beings is the equivalent of vilification.

In other words, the right’s concern is not so much that the movie is anti-troops, but that it’s anti-Iraq war. Which, of course, it is.

-Cf

Interesting new documentary following some American soldiers around for a while. I wonder if the right will say this “vilifies” the troops as well.

http://www.gunnerpalace.com/

-Cf

Bert, I appreciate the response. Chris, on the other hand, you make a lot of assumptions about me that aren’t appreciated. Did I ever say I was from the right? I have been against the war from the beginning, and am probably closer to your political stance than to the so-called right. But that’s okay, take all my political views which you can obviously infer from my short post, assume they all fit nicely into one group, and place me in that category. Intelligent.
Back my simple point. You said “Nowhere are soldiers vilified in the film.” I can understand how ON THE WHOLE, the movie may not have vilified soldiers. Your posts helped me see that more clearly. Yet Chris, you said “nowhere.” Be honest to yourself and ask if you would have been disgraced if that was you singing “Burn, mutherfucker, burn,” or laughing around a carcass, or bursting into a home and kidnapping a college kid without telling the family why. I’m sure you would think to yourself, “Oh, but I’m sure the average American moviegoer realizes that the rest of the movie sticks up for me and the rest of the troops.” Bullshit. You would be embarrassed, and I know I would. Moore takes cheap shots. I agree with a lot of his views but those kids in Iraq who have my respect as well, don’t deserve to come home and see that their image has been taken out of context and used in a movie that is completely against the war they were fighting and the cause they were dying for. In those few instances, I maintain those soldiers were disgraced, disrespected, vilified, whatever you want to call it.

First of all Phil,

In defense of Chris, and knowing his writing style, he can be very strident (like me!) in expressing himself and making his case. However, no where in his post did he make pointed personal or political observations about you.

At times, discourse on WatchBlog can get heated. Thus, it is necessary to be thick-skinned, know full well your opinion will consistently be challenged, be prepared, and don’t take it personally.

Upon reading your first posted comment Phil, I assumed you may be of that group that constantly accuses those of us against the war, as being anti-US soldier.

Chris wrote:

How someone can see the film and not also come away with an increased respect for the American troops is beyond me. Perhaps you live in a fantasyland where foul-mouthed troops don’t exist and where all soldiers love their President. I suspect that the perception that Fahrenheit 9/11 vilifies the troops is based on the jingoist propagandist idea that footage of soldiers must always always always portray them as superhuman perfect victorious heroes, and that any attempt to portray them as human beings is the equivalent of vilification.

I believe Chris’s words reflect how angry and tired we are, at having to defend our patriotism and having our respect, admiration and love of our troops questioned.

Do not make assumptions also, about how everyone watching those images of our soldiers conduct will judge it. Was I embarrassed by those soldiers cursing, acting menacingly and seemingly full of hate? Absolutely not! There conduct is reasonable and expected for a person making the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Some would say, those soldiers who openly expressed anger at their command and Donald Rumsfeld are in violation of military code. Am I embarrassed they do not live up to what we expect from our troops? Absolutely not!

Phil, I apologize for suddenly lumping you in with “the right” at the end of my post!! It was, as Bert describes, an emotional reaction to the constant feeling we on the left have about having to defend ourselves all the time from accusations of being anti-troops. I misread the nature of your post, I guess, but I’ll try to explain why.

I vehemently disagree with your contention that Moore was vilifying the troops anywhere in the film. To vilify, to me, is to present a deliberate and coherent argument that your subject is bad. Merely showing someone being bad is no In film, such arguments draw out over a series of shots and scenes, in much the same way a textual argument occurs over a series of sentences and paragraphs. One cannot “vilify” in a feature film with a single scene alone - one can only discuss vilification in film when looking at the movie as a whole. To say that any particular shot is “vilification” is like quoting a sentence fragment out of context of a full essay.

That said, I still think that the “burn motherfucker” scenes were not even really instances of “vilification”. Firstly, those scenes were fragments of a larger argument about how our soldiers are regular people, regular kids. Secondly, I don’t even think that the person in that scene was particularly likely to be a bad soldier. He was a kid under enormous stress (and I honestly cut him a lot of slack). I think that Moore’s intention was, in fact, to portray a “kid under enormous stress”, not to show that some of our soldiers are really cold blooded American killers.

The scenes were certainly negative images of soldiers when compared to the 2-dimensional scripted superheroes the press usually portrays, and you are probably right that some of the soldiers shown in the movie might not want to show the film to their wives and kids, but the scenes were accurate (that is, they were not staged or faked), and they were carefully selected and edited to create a coherent argument whose ultimate goal was decidedly not to vilify the soldiers.

-Cf

Chris, the apology is appreciated. Taking Bert’s advice, from now on I will try to be more thick-skinned.

You and Bert have both convinced me that on the whole, Moore was probably not vilifying the soldiers. However, my focus was more on those few individual soldiers. I see that my post probably took those few shots out of the context of the movie, and it is not a complete representation of Moore’s message. But they are moments that just left a bad taste in my mouth. I agree that their actions bring a human quality to them, but how human does it get before it’s disgraceful?

Maybe you didn’t find the movie to be disgracing the individual soldiers, but how about torture at Abu Ghraib? Is it then such a large ethical jump to the behavior of some Iraqis depicted in the movie, dragging dead bodies through the street? Using what I believe is your reasoning about the uncensored behavior of a group of people under enormous stress, maybe this also brings a human quality to the Iraqi people. I am not arguing that Moore vilified the Iraqi people as a whole, but is it impossible for him to vilify these Iraqis (along with the beheaders) while not vilifying their entire people?

You say that one can only discuss vilification when looking at the movie as a whole. If we are talking about the vilification of the entire army, then I would tend to agree with you. If we are talking about vilification of an individual, I am probably not going to convince you of my views. Hopefully you agree with me that it would be embarrassing if that footage was of you. I still take that to be a vilification of sorts (albeit maybe a narrow one), but I now understand that there are some valid reasons not to.

Bert, maybe you slightly misread my post. I asked if you would feel embarassed if that were you IN the footage. You answered “Was I embarrassed by those soldiers cursing, acting menacingly and seemingly full of hate? Absolutely not!” Being embarassed BY them is different. If you honestly feel that you wouldn’t be embarrassed if that was you in the footage, then that is a different matter.

That’s a very interesting and absolutely true to life documentary.