Fahrenheit 9/11 under the microscope again
While factual inaccuracies and unfair play may have undermined the full impact of Bowling for Columbine, the New York Times reports that Fahrenheit 9/11 has been properly vetted and verified.
Mr. Moore usually revels in his role as the target of conservative attacks, and his delight in playing the mischievous, little-guy bomb-thrower has brought him fame, wealth and the devotion of fans more interested in rhetorical force than precision. But with “Fahrenheit” he has taken on his biggest and best-defended target yet, and his production staff says that on his orders they have taken no chances in checking and double-checking the film, knowing Bush supporters would pounce on factual mistakes.
Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style “war room” to offer an instant response to any assault on the film’s credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of “oppo,” or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine’s legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.
It is, however, still a partisan criticism of Bush’s time in government. However, Moore is an advocate, not a judge. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it is based on solid, truthful evidence.
That said, Mr. Moore’s fact-checkers do not view the film as straight reportage. “This is an Op-Ed piece, it’s not a news report,” said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. “This is not The New York Times, it’s not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual’s view of current events. And I’m a very firm believer that it is within everybody’s right to examine the actions of their government.”
Looking very forward to seeing this movie.
11:17pm (GMT +10.00) 
Moore is a partisan hack, nothing more. Fact is, this film is likely a violation of some of our campaign laws here in the US. Anyone who takes this movie seriously is, to put it mildly, gullible and naive.
There is no such thing as an objective documentary.
Let me say it again. There is no such thing as an objective documentary. No one decides to make a film about something they have no opinion on. Some do it more blatantly than others, but every film is to some degree a reflection of the film maker’s opinion. Just saying that Moore is “partisan” doesn’t invalidate what he says or make anyone “gullible and naive” for listening to it. In my opinion (note – my opinion, no obligation to agree) it’s more damaging to claim to be objective (anyone ever hear Moore claiming to be objective? Didn’t think so) and covertly push your agenda than to come out and say what you’re doing. At least if people know your motive then they can judge what you say on that basis.
Now, Moore has been guilty of stretching (and outright mangling) the facts to make a point, which even people who agree with him have criticised him for (see the link from a few days ago – http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html). But you can’t reject his position solely on the basis that he is biased towards one side. If it turns out that there are inaccuracies in 9/11 as well, then fine; but a bias isn’t an inaccuracy.
Free speech doesn’t require you to speak both sides.
“Moore is a partisan hack, nothing more.”
Appeal to Motive fallacy. Moving right along.
” Fact is, this film is likely a violation of some of our campaign laws here in the US.”
Saying “fact is” and then “likely a violation of” doesn’t sound very convincing- I call BS.
“Anyone who takes this movie seriously is, to put it mildly, gullible and naive.”
I’ll watch it to be entertained, and my left-wing heart will take much joy in watching Dubya getting pilloried. Then I’ll move on.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Poor Doz.
“Poor Doz.”
Oh Wow, an article. I guess you win the argument! *roll eyes* Don’t waste my time again- you want to have a debate, why don’t you try to back up your own statements? Like your absurd campaign law claim? Posting articles by some right-winger as a substitute for your own thoughts just goes to show you don’t have the intellectual capacity to defend your own ideas without running to someone else.
(or articles by a left-winger, as the case may be, in the case of that Hitchens article, a left winger doing an impressive job of channeling vast amounts of right wing BS about Iraq while doing nothing to save the efficacy of Bill’s appeals to motive and accusations of possible criminal ramifications)
“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.)”
Interesting, Hitchens is claiming the sanctions were due to non-compliance with UN resolutions. That’s not quite true. It was the policy of both Clinton and Bush that sanctions would remain until Saddam was gone. Furthermore, Iraq’s sovereignty was “qualified” by the UN, noone else- therefore attempting to imply that the US could unilaterally further “qualify” its sovereignty by occupying the country is needless to say, a bit odd.
“‘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. ”
Notice the implication that all insurgents = Ba’athists, which is clearly not the case.
“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.”
Interesting claim, considering the Iraqis attempted to bring him in and he either killed himself or was shot.
“Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose “operation” murdered Leon Klinghoffer”
Notice he doens’t mention that the man in question had officially renounced terrorism for over a decade and had been pardoned by Israel. But that wouldn’t suit Hitchens purposes.
” Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. ”
Falsification. Iraq, like Saudi Arabia, sponsored the families of already dead suicide bombers. Macarbe, but not “sponsorship of suicide bombers”.
“(Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.)”
ROFLMAO! Can you believe this? Americans are in Israel, therefore Iraqi sponsorship of families of dead suicide psychos in Israel is a threat to America!
” 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.”
Not quite as absurd as his past comment, but still utterly ridiculous, on two levels- firstly, it was during a miliary invasion of *Kuwait*, and second, it was in *1991*, not *2003*. I think Hitchens would find that the Iraqi military suffered an *ahem* decline in between those two dates.
“After that same invasion was repelledSaddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more”
Good ol 1991 and 2003.
“the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. ”
You mean the same way Bush 41 tried to “murder” Saddam during Desert Storm with airstrikes?
” Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) ”
Of course, we should spend billions of tax dollars and the lives of almost 1,000 men and the livlihood of 10 times that number (in American wounded) to avenge Bush for his dear ol Dad.
“hould 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.)”
An appropriate response. Your point, Hitchens? Besides dragging up the events of a decade past against one man as some lame attempt at a point.
” Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones”
Ah, you mean the no-fly zones that were supposedly established by a resolution that *affirmed* Iraqi sovereignty and was not enacted under Ch VII of the UN Charter, and were therefore totally illegal- and everyone knew it- including the US (hence the reason why they never dragged it out as a war justification).
“and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country.”
Except when the no-fly zone in the north wasn’t being shut down to let the Turks go in and murder the *evil* Kurds, as opposed to the *good* Kurds, you mean.
” 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 overthro Saddam.”
Hey- moron- he *grew up there*
Furthermore:
http://prisonplanet.com/us_rejected_iraq_offer.htm
” 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.”
Well, if they CELEBRATED it, they must be a threat!
” Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. ”
NEWS FLASH! ARAB COUNTRY IS ANTI-SEMETIC! FILM AT 11! What America has to do with Israel, one is left to ponder.
” I think one might describe that as “threatening,” even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews.”
Absurd. Rhetoric, intent and capability are not synonyms.
“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. ”
Another falsehood- specifically, Zarqawi went to *Kurdish* Iraq- the one that had achieved virtual independence from Ba’athist rule thanks to the no-fly zones. Saddam held no power there.
“On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reportedand the David Kay report had establishedthat 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.)”
Untrue- North Korea rejected the offer due to the climate before the invasion, and furthermore, if anyone can explain to me how North Korea would get a complete missile system to Iraq through the blockade, I’d like to hear it (Iraq’s Al Samoud missles, which were kitbashes of 1960s tech SA-2 SAMs, were detected and in the process of being destroyed by UNMOVIC before the invasion- you cannot hide missile development, period).
“Unfair” indeed. The worst display of BS and half-truths I’ve seen about the Iraqi “threat” for a long time.
Do you have any friends? Do you have a life?
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/8838660.htm
If Moore isn’t lying, like he so obviously did in BFC, then why has he, “created a political-style “war room” to offer an instant response to any assault on the film’s credibility”? I know why.
Doz: don’t feed the troll.
And Shish enters the debate.
Bill’s definition of “debate”: post links at your opponent. Do run along now, moron.
” Do you have any friends? Do you have a life? ”
*rolleyes*
Concession Accepted, hatfucker.
Ad hominem and a complete lack of answers to any of my questions. And I’m the one that conceded? Do ask your teachers to go slower for you, and ask them to repeat if necessary, I’m sure they’ll gladly oblige.
“Ad hominem”
You clearly don’t know the definition of ad hominem, idiot. If I say “you’re wrong *because* you’re an idiot”, that’s an ad hominem. If I say you’re wrong, explain why, then call you an idiot, that’s just calling a spade a spade. Idiot.
“a complete lack of answers to any of my questions”
And which question was that? All you’ve done on this thread is made unsubstantiated claims, while posting irrelevant links.
“And I’m the one that conceded?”
You bet bucko.
“Do ask your teachers to go slower for you, and ask them to repeat if necessary, I’m sure they’ll gladly oblige.”
Please attend a remedial logic class. Thank you.
This, on the other hand, *is* an ad hominem:
“Do you have any friends? Do you have a life?”
In response to Hitchens creative interpretation of the past decade. That the above is all you could think of reply speaks more to your “arguments” (and I use that term in the loosest possible way) than I ever could.
Maybe you should post another link at me?
Just curious, where do you live?
Australia. What difference does it make?
Have you ever been to America? What exactly do you know about the US?
Does that make a difference, physically travelling to the US?
Hoar can your knowledge of anything go if you’ve never experienced it firsthand? Hypothetically, you and I could have exactly the same amount of secondhand knowledge about Australia, but you live there and I’ve never been. Whose opionion about Australia are you going to trust more regarding Australia?
Hoar*
For some reason it replaces “Hoar” (which is what the words in my orginal comment and its correction are supposed to be) with “Hoar”. Strange, but I imagine it won’t do it when its inserted within other text. This is the test.
Did it again despite being within other text.
“Hoar can your knowledge of anything go if you’ve never experienced it firsthand? Hypothetically, you and I could have exactly the same amount of secondhand knowledge about Australia, but you live there and I’ve never been. Whose opionion about Australia are you going to trust more regarding Australia?”
The issue is not knowing Americ-a one doesn’t need to visit the place to know how utterly polarized its become by partisan advocates, of which Moore undoubtedly is one; however the attempts to show him as a “liar”so far do not stand up under scrutiny- saying its a bad, unfair movie (Moore’s people have openly admitted its an Op-Ed piece, not a news report) or criticizing editing decisions (to get technical, a nephew in Iraq is not the same as a son) is not the same as this movie contains outright lies. It may (and probably does, as with BFC) contain bad logic.
Better yet, have you even seen the movie? Fuck it, I know you haven’t.
I have.
The issue is knowing America. I’ve lived in America my entire life. I’ve served my country in the military and I’ve seen much of the world. I know what my country is and I know what it isn’t. Moore makes my country the enemy, and we are not the enemy. This asshole misleads and misleads so much, it all becomes tantamount to a lie, and a very big one at that.
I know you hate links, but there are so many important ones in this case. Check this out, and all the included/connected links.
Tell you what, when the movie comes out next month here, we’ll continue. Until then:
“The issue is knowing America. ”
Why?
” I’ve lived in America my entire life. I’ve served my country in the military and I’ve seen much of the world. I know what my country is and I know what it isn’t.”
What does Moore say about your country then, specifically, and what bearing does your military service have on it?
“I know you hate links, but there are so many important ones in this case. Check this out, and all the included/connected links.”
When I see the film, I’ll be more equipped to comment.