Response to Fahrenheit 9/11
Well I'm posting this nearly a week and a half after I thought I would. I was quite busy with my practicum for my internship. I never knew how much hard work teaching required.
I do not question Michael Moore’s skills as a filmmaker. His film was consistently engaging and his skills at creating propaganda are unrivaled. The sound only clip of the World Trade Center attacks was a stroke of genius and allowed viewers now unfazed by 9/11 footage since they’ve seen it so many times to re-experience the horror with a different twist. A clip of John Ashcroft’s rendition of “Let the Eagles Soar” was worth the price of admission.
What I do question are some of Moore’s arguments and “facts” provided without any context or attempt at fairness and balance. I realize that Moore’s film wasn’t designed to be an objective account of the last four years. But I still felt he could have used his satiric wit to chastise Bush without being viciously anti-American and, at times, ludicrous.
The film as I remember it was made up of these parts-
1) 2000 Election and Florida
2) 9/11 and Climate of Fear Afterwards
3) Bush-Saudi link
4) War on Afghanistan and Unocal pipeline
5) War on Iraq- Corporate Profiteering, Casualties, Recruiting
My section-by-section critique:
1. This was probably my favorite segment of the film because I feel that George W. Bush wasn’t legitimately elected as president. Al Gore won the popular vote and would’ve won the electoral vote if it wasn’t for intervention from Katherine Harris, faulty voting machines, and disenfranchisement of African-American ex-felons. The only vote Bush legitimately won was the Supreme Court’s vote. Unfortunately, that’s the only vote that mattered…And I haven’t even mentioned Ralph Nader yet. The clip of the unanswered complaints of the Congressional Black Caucus was quite possibly the most poignant and effective segment of the film.
The only part of this segment that I found unfair or inaccurate was Moore’s shot of African Americans voting accompanied by his commentary stating that Republicans disenfranchised them. A gullible youngster watching the film would’ve thought that the voting rights situation in Florida was similar to that in Georgia circa 1950 because Moore never mentions that the Blacks being purged from voting rolls were ex-felons. While it is true that Florida’s policy on felon voting rights had a double standard since it allowed Hispanics ex-felons to vote (Hispanics in Florida tend to lean Republican) but not Black ex-felons (nearly 90% of African-Americans vote Democrat), that doesn’t excuse Moore’s distortion. Moore could’ve been fairer while still making the same point by mentioning that those purged from Florida’s voting rolls were ex-felons but also mentioning the state’s double standard.
2. Moore’s clip of Bush’s reaction (reading My Pet Goat silently) to the 9/11 attacks was hysterically funny. But I must ask, what should’ve Bush done in that time period? If he had ripped off his shirt and displayed tough-guy audacity, Moore still would’ve poked fun at him.
Moore also satirizes the post-9/11 climate of fear created in the United States. One example of his satire is a Fox News clip warning of “poison pens.” Bush has acted like a polar opposite of a real war president- Franklin Roosevelt. FDR famously said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” It seems as if Bush and his cabal have done everything in their power to exacerbate Americans’ fears rather than to quell them. Yet Moore completely neglects the fact that sworn enemies of the United States have declared a jihad and are in no way satisfied with one terrorist attack on American borders. A more effective approach would have attempted to avoid downplaying the threat of terrorism while still criticizing the President’s response to it (i.e. The Patriot Act).
3. Moore spends an excessive amount of time attempting to show that the Saudis (including the Bin Ladens) are essentially members of the Bush family. He uses these claims to argue that Bush’s response to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has been weak and that its weakness stems from Bush’s ties to the Saudis.
Many of the claims Moore makes in this part of the film are distortions. For example, he claims that the Saudis have invested 1.4 billion dollars in the friends and family of George W. Bush. Of course, Moore doesn’t tell the audience that, “Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group…The movie fails to show any evidence that Bush White House actually has intervened in any way to promote the interests of the Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the company’s interest was the cancellation of (an) $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek)
Also, Moore says that the Bin Ladens were flown out of the USA without being questioned and at a time when even Ricky Martin couldn’t fly. First of all, when the Bin Ladens were flown out, the Tampa airport had been reopened. Second, the FBI did question 22 of the 26 Bin Ladens flown out and none had ties to terrorism. Finally, Moore doesn’t mention who issued the order to fly out the Bin Ladens- one of Bush’s toughest critics, ex-counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke.
I could go on all day on this section alone. For more distortions from the most egregiously inaccurate section of the film (and distortions/flaws from the rest of the film as well), read the Newsweek articles “Under the Hot Lights” and “More Distortions from Michael Moore” in their entirety.
4. Moore spends time attempting to convince the audience that the United States that Unocal’s interests in building an Afghanistan pipeline were a reason for the invasion of Afghanistan. The truth of the matter is that the United States invaded Afghanistan because it defied Bush’s post-9/11 ultimatum and a 9/18 UN resolution. Afghanistan refused to close down its terrorist camps or extradite Osama Bin Laden to the United States. Also, Unocal had withdrawn from the pipeline deal by 1998: “The US company formally withdrew from the consortium in 1998.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm) Thanks Ori!
Moreover, Moore relays a clip of Dick Clarke claiming that we need more soldiers in Afghanistan. But Moore doesn’t want American soldiers engaged in combat anywhere (he even opposed humanitarian intervention in Kosovo). This looks like a classic case of cognitive dissonance to me.
5. Moore’s gut-wrenching footage of the Iraq war is a powerful and necessary account of the carnage that any military conflict, regardless of whether it is just or unjust, brings. Yet his reasons for opposing the war on Iraq are quite simplistic and naïve. He shows footage of executives at a corporate meeting bragging about how much money they’d make off of the war on Iraq. Moore’s suggestion is that the war on Iraq was unjust because corporations profited at the expense of the masses. But are corporate profits always evil? Who other than transnational corporations would have rebuilt Iraq? Saddam’s state-run industries? Money earmarked for the Iraq war was used to topple one of the world’s most brutal regimes, liberate a country, begin to reconstruct hospitals and schools, get electricity running, and wage a counterinsurgency against militants committed to the defeat of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. With those accomplishments kept in mind, is corporate success necessarily a bad thing? I always thought an increase in the GDP and a stronger stock market are things we should we wishing for rather than regretting. Moore seems to think otherwise.
My biggest complaint about Fahrenheit 9/11 is its footage of Iraq immediately before the American invasion. Moore shows viewers a serene utopia where children fly kites shortly before the big, bad American wolves destroy the country’s infrastructure and mass murder civilians. I usually object to how right-wing commentators refer those who are anti-war to be pro-Al Qaeda/Saddam/etc. Though, I can’t characterize Moore’s footage of pre-war Iraq as anything other than pro-Saddam propaganda.
As expected, Moore stressed Bush’s references to weapons of mass destruction and “grave and gathering” threats. Moore now feels vindicated after being booed during the Oscars when he said the war on Iraq was being fought for fictitious reasons. Neoconservatives have had an obsession with Iraq since the 90s. Thus, it doesn’t take too much cynicism to believe that the Bush administration sexed up its case for war (i.e. its claim about uranium yellowcake from Africa). But even liberal Democrats who opposed the war (like Teddy Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi) claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the Clinton administration’s intelligence was similar to that cited by the Bush administration. To imply that Bush and his cabal lied about WMD to open Iraq up for corporations to exploit is nonsense.
I opposed the war because I felt that the war on Iraq was a diversion from the bigger war we waging against terror in the deserts of Afghanistan. Since billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops have been diverted to Iraq, Afghanistan’s opium trade is resurgent, Al-Qaeda membership is up, and worldwide terror has proliferated (attacks in Iraq, Bali, Riyadh, and Madrid are proof). Hamid Karzai is essentially the mayor of Kabul. By occupying an Arab nation, the United States has played into Bin Laden’s game plan and given Al-Qaeda a recruiting tool. Rather than emphasizing why the war on Iraq was detrimental to American security, Moore spends his time pointing fingers at corporations and floating around inane conspiracy theories.
There’s more I have to say about Moore’s closing commentary and use of Randolph Bourne’s logic. I didn’t mention Moore’s distortion of Bush’s time spent on vacation. I could also talk about everything he did right in this film, particularly when it came to humor. The film ends with Dubya stumbling over the old adage, “Fool me once, shame on you…” Content with that less than flattering portayal of Bush, I joined the rest of the audience in giving a standing ovation. I'm too weary to say anymore. I need to get up for work tomorrow. Good night.
I do not question Michael Moore’s skills as a filmmaker. His film was consistently engaging and his skills at creating propaganda are unrivaled. The sound only clip of the World Trade Center attacks was a stroke of genius and allowed viewers now unfazed by 9/11 footage since they’ve seen it so many times to re-experience the horror with a different twist. A clip of John Ashcroft’s rendition of “Let the Eagles Soar” was worth the price of admission.
What I do question are some of Moore’s arguments and “facts” provided without any context or attempt at fairness and balance. I realize that Moore’s film wasn’t designed to be an objective account of the last four years. But I still felt he could have used his satiric wit to chastise Bush without being viciously anti-American and, at times, ludicrous.
The film as I remember it was made up of these parts-
1) 2000 Election and Florida
2) 9/11 and Climate of Fear Afterwards
3) Bush-Saudi link
4) War on Afghanistan and Unocal pipeline
5) War on Iraq- Corporate Profiteering, Casualties, Recruiting
My section-by-section critique:
1. This was probably my favorite segment of the film because I feel that George W. Bush wasn’t legitimately elected as president. Al Gore won the popular vote and would’ve won the electoral vote if it wasn’t for intervention from Katherine Harris, faulty voting machines, and disenfranchisement of African-American ex-felons. The only vote Bush legitimately won was the Supreme Court’s vote. Unfortunately, that’s the only vote that mattered…And I haven’t even mentioned Ralph Nader yet. The clip of the unanswered complaints of the Congressional Black Caucus was quite possibly the most poignant and effective segment of the film.
The only part of this segment that I found unfair or inaccurate was Moore’s shot of African Americans voting accompanied by his commentary stating that Republicans disenfranchised them. A gullible youngster watching the film would’ve thought that the voting rights situation in Florida was similar to that in Georgia circa 1950 because Moore never mentions that the Blacks being purged from voting rolls were ex-felons. While it is true that Florida’s policy on felon voting rights had a double standard since it allowed Hispanics ex-felons to vote (Hispanics in Florida tend to lean Republican) but not Black ex-felons (nearly 90% of African-Americans vote Democrat), that doesn’t excuse Moore’s distortion. Moore could’ve been fairer while still making the same point by mentioning that those purged from Florida’s voting rolls were ex-felons but also mentioning the state’s double standard.
2. Moore’s clip of Bush’s reaction (reading My Pet Goat silently) to the 9/11 attacks was hysterically funny. But I must ask, what should’ve Bush done in that time period? If he had ripped off his shirt and displayed tough-guy audacity, Moore still would’ve poked fun at him.
Moore also satirizes the post-9/11 climate of fear created in the United States. One example of his satire is a Fox News clip warning of “poison pens.” Bush has acted like a polar opposite of a real war president- Franklin Roosevelt. FDR famously said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” It seems as if Bush and his cabal have done everything in their power to exacerbate Americans’ fears rather than to quell them. Yet Moore completely neglects the fact that sworn enemies of the United States have declared a jihad and are in no way satisfied with one terrorist attack on American borders. A more effective approach would have attempted to avoid downplaying the threat of terrorism while still criticizing the President’s response to it (i.e. The Patriot Act).
3. Moore spends an excessive amount of time attempting to show that the Saudis (including the Bin Ladens) are essentially members of the Bush family. He uses these claims to argue that Bush’s response to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has been weak and that its weakness stems from Bush’s ties to the Saudis.
Many of the claims Moore makes in this part of the film are distortions. For example, he claims that the Saudis have invested 1.4 billion dollars in the friends and family of George W. Bush. Of course, Moore doesn’t tell the audience that, “Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group…The movie fails to show any evidence that Bush White House actually has intervened in any way to promote the interests of the Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the company’s interest was the cancellation of (an) $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek)
Also, Moore says that the Bin Ladens were flown out of the USA without being questioned and at a time when even Ricky Martin couldn’t fly. First of all, when the Bin Ladens were flown out, the Tampa airport had been reopened. Second, the FBI did question 22 of the 26 Bin Ladens flown out and none had ties to terrorism. Finally, Moore doesn’t mention who issued the order to fly out the Bin Ladens- one of Bush’s toughest critics, ex-counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke.
I could go on all day on this section alone. For more distortions from the most egregiously inaccurate section of the film (and distortions/flaws from the rest of the film as well), read the Newsweek articles “Under the Hot Lights” and “More Distortions from Michael Moore” in their entirety.
4. Moore spends time attempting to convince the audience that the United States that Unocal’s interests in building an Afghanistan pipeline were a reason for the invasion of Afghanistan. The truth of the matter is that the United States invaded Afghanistan because it defied Bush’s post-9/11 ultimatum and a 9/18 UN resolution. Afghanistan refused to close down its terrorist camps or extradite Osama Bin Laden to the United States. Also, Unocal had withdrawn from the pipeline deal by 1998: “The US company formally withdrew from the consortium in 1998.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm) Thanks Ori!
Moreover, Moore relays a clip of Dick Clarke claiming that we need more soldiers in Afghanistan. But Moore doesn’t want American soldiers engaged in combat anywhere (he even opposed humanitarian intervention in Kosovo). This looks like a classic case of cognitive dissonance to me.
5. Moore’s gut-wrenching footage of the Iraq war is a powerful and necessary account of the carnage that any military conflict, regardless of whether it is just or unjust, brings. Yet his reasons for opposing the war on Iraq are quite simplistic and naïve. He shows footage of executives at a corporate meeting bragging about how much money they’d make off of the war on Iraq. Moore’s suggestion is that the war on Iraq was unjust because corporations profited at the expense of the masses. But are corporate profits always evil? Who other than transnational corporations would have rebuilt Iraq? Saddam’s state-run industries? Money earmarked for the Iraq war was used to topple one of the world’s most brutal regimes, liberate a country, begin to reconstruct hospitals and schools, get electricity running, and wage a counterinsurgency against militants committed to the defeat of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. With those accomplishments kept in mind, is corporate success necessarily a bad thing? I always thought an increase in the GDP and a stronger stock market are things we should we wishing for rather than regretting. Moore seems to think otherwise.
My biggest complaint about Fahrenheit 9/11 is its footage of Iraq immediately before the American invasion. Moore shows viewers a serene utopia where children fly kites shortly before the big, bad American wolves destroy the country’s infrastructure and mass murder civilians. I usually object to how right-wing commentators refer those who are anti-war to be pro-Al Qaeda/Saddam/etc. Though, I can’t characterize Moore’s footage of pre-war Iraq as anything other than pro-Saddam propaganda.
As expected, Moore stressed Bush’s references to weapons of mass destruction and “grave and gathering” threats. Moore now feels vindicated after being booed during the Oscars when he said the war on Iraq was being fought for fictitious reasons. Neoconservatives have had an obsession with Iraq since the 90s. Thus, it doesn’t take too much cynicism to believe that the Bush administration sexed up its case for war (i.e. its claim about uranium yellowcake from Africa). But even liberal Democrats who opposed the war (like Teddy Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi) claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the Clinton administration’s intelligence was similar to that cited by the Bush administration. To imply that Bush and his cabal lied about WMD to open Iraq up for corporations to exploit is nonsense.
I opposed the war because I felt that the war on Iraq was a diversion from the bigger war we waging against terror in the deserts of Afghanistan. Since billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops have been diverted to Iraq, Afghanistan’s opium trade is resurgent, Al-Qaeda membership is up, and worldwide terror has proliferated (attacks in Iraq, Bali, Riyadh, and Madrid are proof). Hamid Karzai is essentially the mayor of Kabul. By occupying an Arab nation, the United States has played into Bin Laden’s game plan and given Al-Qaeda a recruiting tool. Rather than emphasizing why the war on Iraq was detrimental to American security, Moore spends his time pointing fingers at corporations and floating around inane conspiracy theories.
There’s more I have to say about Moore’s closing commentary and use of Randolph Bourne’s logic. I didn’t mention Moore’s distortion of Bush’s time spent on vacation. I could also talk about everything he did right in this film, particularly when it came to humor. The film ends with Dubya stumbling over the old adage, “Fool me once, shame on you…” Content with that less than flattering portayal of Bush, I joined the rest of the audience in giving a standing ovation. I'm too weary to say anymore. I need to get up for work tomorrow. Good night.