Unfairenheit 9/11 = Bullshit

I was going to write a review of Fahrenheit 9/11 (which is FORKING AWESOME), but instead I decided to have a little fun with Christopher Hitchens. No homo.

Christopher Hitchens poses for ridonkulous photos like the one above holding a cigarette because he thinks it'll make him look cool. That's really about all you need to know about him. He used to write for The Nation and now he writes for Vanity Fair, but he's probably most famous for going on cable news shows like "Hardball with Chris Matthews" looking like he slept in his suit and arguing with the host and whoever else might be there about anything and everything. In fact, he strikes me as the kind of guy who likes to disagree with shit for the sake of disagreeing with shit, which makes him basically different from myself in that I disagree with everything because everything is wrong. Maybe it's a minor distinction, but I think it's one worth noting.

Anyhoo, it looks like Coffee Breath has decided to take a pretty hardcore neocon stance on the so-called War on Terror. I'm not sure what his deal is as far as that's concerned, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that maybe as a child he was beaten and anally raped by a gang of angry towel heads. Because he seems like too intelligent a guy to have arrived at that stance having actually considered the facts. Obviously this is personal. Which brings me to this little story he's written about Michael Moore's new movie Fahrenheit 9/11 that I'm sure everyone will try to reference in their little posts about Michael Moore and his movie. It's bullshit. I read it and while I won't (and can't) go through it and try to counter each and every one of his points, I will go through and point out the ones that I thought were especially, um, bullshitty.

Let's start with this from the second paragraph:

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.

Does mentioning Leni Riefenstahl (director of Triumph of the Will) in a discussion of Michael Moore and his films count as far as the whole Godwin's Law thing is concerned? I would say so, especially since he doesn't actually mention how Fahrenheit 9/11 conforms to the the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills of Leni Riefenstahl.

ALSO: Funny, I don't recall her ever winning the Palme d'Or either. And since when did Yellowed Fingertips become a film critic?

Moving on, let's skip a few paragraphs to this part right here:

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.

BFD. Here in America we like to consider people innocent until proven guilty. Since when did this become a controversial statement? Prove that fucker guilty and then go after him.

And the "intervention" in Afghanistan was unjustified for lots of reasons.

Then he goes and lists these next 6 points and tries to claim that they're all contradictory:

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.)

See. I don't even know what else to say. They just aren't. Especially point #4 since that's the one he tends to harp on.  In the movie, it mentions that G-Dubs sent 11,000 troops into Afghanistan after 9/11, which is less than there are cops in Manhattan, supposedly. Um, exsqueeze me, but wasn't the point of sending all those poor hoosiers and negroes into Afghanistan in the first place to find Osama bin Laden and his crew? Because if it was, then obviously we fucked that one up, and I think that was the point he was trying to make.

But that argument only works anyway if you buy the whole argument of Michael Moore as Pacifist to begin with. And, of course, you shouldn't.

Peep game:

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.

and

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. (...) Rock the vote, indeed.

So you see, he's basically just trying to label Michael Moore as a pacifist so that he can construct this huge argument against pacifist-ism, or whatever it's called and therefore Moore himself. But he isn't one. And for him to base his whole argument around MM being a pacifist would be like me basing my whole argument on the fact that Nasty Mouth is just angry that he got a really bad knob shine the last time he was in Cambodia. Because I don't know for a fact whether or not that's true. Otherwise I would've used it.

And finally, I especially liked the part where he went so far as to swear on the lives of his children:

[I'm an asshole and] 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.

I might have to consult O-Dub on this one, but swearing on the lives of your children strikes me as weak sauce. For all we know he might not even like his kids. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't like him, assuming they're old enough.

I swear on the lives of Christopher Hitchens' children that I don't work at a White Assholes.

Comments

[BG&E]

>In fact, he strikes me as the kind of guy who likes to disagree with shit for the sake of disagreeing with shit

reminds me of one christopher hitchens

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086499/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12495017&method=full&siteid=50143

http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842/

>Does mentioning Leni Riefenstahl (director of Triumph of the Will) in a discussion of Michael Moore and his films count as far as the whole Godwin's Law thing is concerned?

i still don't see your point on this issue you and JMJ have had comment-wars about, unless you think somone's trying to make and al-quieda/saddam connection or some shit. basically...fuck this, i've explained myself: http://goingoutonalimb.blogspot.com/2004/06/two-completely-different-films.html

>And since when did Yellowed Fingertips become a film critic?

oh shit dude, he did forget to take his FCATs and get a doctrine in film in order to mention it with a certain amount of credability, what a douche. on another note, whats your beef with people and them talking about movies in a way you don't agree with (fitz shares the affliction as well)

>Prove that fucker guilty and then go after him

..."I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds?"
-david cross, even he knows he's guilty....

and becuase he's an american citizen, we can also put him on trial...i hope that you were being sarcastic, which would be strange becuase then you would be argeeing against moore..

>So you see, he's basically just trying to label Michael Moore as a pacifist so that he can construct this huge argument against pacifist-ism, or whatever it's called and therefore Moore himself

you're right, MMoore never publicly went against bosnia etc. im sure he supported it. reasons being:

a) clinton
b) no movie/book to profit from it's 2 or 3 american deaths..and on a "all the inocents killed note", fuck the serbs/chechyns that died, they weren't that poor.

[Alyn]

Hitchens ROCKS! He's an old school journalist.

Come on, in this day and age how many reporters would continue to make television appearances drunk as a skunk, yet still appear (semi) lucid?

Hitchens is the best. I guess it's obvious I agree with some of his points. I do think MOST modern presidents/politicans can be made to look egotistical/boorish if one researched enough footage of their numerous appearances.

The thing that's funny about Hitchens is that you know HE KNOWS he's almost as well known for drinking as he is for his views. I've heard some reporters joke about his "open" problem.

Then again, it's a little sad, if not pathetic.

[j-station]

This is Bol posting on my mom's shitty laptop.

>i still don't see your point on this issue you and JMJ have had comment-wars about, unless you think somone's trying to make and al-quieda/saddam connection or some shit.

It means that when you have to bring up Hitler and the Nazis in arguments that don't have anything to do with Hitler and the Nazis to begin with, you usually didn't have much of a point to begin with.

>reminds me of one christopher hitchens

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086499/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12495017&method=full&siteid=50143

http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842/

I know. That's what I'm saying.

>oh shit dude, he did forget to take his FCATs and get a doctrine in film in order to mention it with a certain amount of credability, what a douche.

Yep. He's not any more of a film critic than I am.

>on another note, whats your beef with people and them talking about movies in a way you don't agree with (fitz shares the affliction as well)

We're both assholes.

>and becuase he's an american citizen, we can also put him on trial...i hope that you were being sarcastic, which would be strange becuase then you would be argeeing against moore..

>and becuase he's an american citizen, we can also put him on trial...i hope that you were being sarcastic, which would be strange becuase then you would be argeeing against moore..

I'm not saying he didn't do it. Are you saying we shouldn't have some proof it was him before we went after him? By that logic, they could've gone after my dumb ass.

>you're right, MMoore never publicly went against bosnia etc. im sure he supported it. reasons being:

>a) clinton
>b) no movie/book to profit from it's 2 or 3 american deaths..and on a "all the inocents killed note", fuck the serbs/chechyns that died, they weren't that poor.

Hmm. Whatever.

>Hitchens ROCKS! He's an old school journalist.

>Come on, in this day and age how many reporters would continue to make television appearances drunk as a skunk, yet still appear (semi) lucid?

I'll admit the man's amusing. But he's also full of shit.

[Fitz]

First of all, when people like bad movies, I'm going to take them to task on it. Are people that pissed that me and Byron don't like Top Gun? I mean, that movie really does suck.

I haven't seen Farenheit 9/11 yet. I don't know if I will, simply because my time is so squeezed lately. To be honest with you, I'm barely going to be able to fit in the Slick Rick/Biz Markie concert.

That being said, the Hitchens article, to me, is pretty good. It has big ups and big downs. What I am going to discuss is, once again, without seeing the movie and pretty much going on what I've heard from Siskel and Roeper, etc.

- The "six contradictory points" in Hitchens article aren't contradictory, regardless of whether or not they are factual.

-I don't know how strong Moore is about the statement that Saddam never even threatened an American, but thats pretty suspect to say. But assuming that Moore is strong about that opinion, that just makes Moore full of shit.

-"In a recent interview, (Michael Moore) 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" Thats just ignorant

-Hitchens article has one retarted part where he talks about Bush 'striking a Russell Crowe' stance after hearing about 9/11, and how liberals would have attacked that. Really, the only reaction Bush should have had was to calmly leave and start planning. Whether or not that was an option to him is not clear to me.

[Jam Master Jyeah]

wait, so even though Osama released tape after tape describing why certain terrorist attacks occured, that he was responsible for them, and that they would continue, he didn't really have anything to do with them, so it was all a dream? just an april fool's joke? I knew it was that fucking bastard santa claus, time to raid the poles!

>It means that when you have to bring up Hitler and the Nazis in arguments that don't have anything to do with Hitler and the Nazis to begin with, you usually didn't have much of a point to begin with.

you're missing the actual point while playing a silly game of 'you said hitler.' way back when I brought up "Triumph of the Will" as a joke (although I still maintain its similarities to Farenheit), I was refering to the style of 'documentary.' It has nothing to do with Hitler and the Nazis other than the fact they were the ones the film was about. What it DOES have to do with Farenheit is that it is similar in propaganda style.

You can't just say: 'that movie is about hitler and anyone that brings up hitler is just doing so for shock value and for an extreme comparison and doesn't have a point' because that movie could have been about a fucking squirrel, the point is it was made to support hitler and make him look good, where Farenheit has been made to condemn Bush and make him look bad.

Whether or not the "facts" in each film and portrayals of each person are true or not can be argued until the end of time, and is something I could care less about. I am just making a comparison that for some reason you like to dismiss as silly and a cheap shot (just because it involves Hitler, which has nothing to do with it) when in fact it is perfectly valid.

All y'all are a bunch of metros and need to stop hatin' on J-Kwon cause he is da bomb and my baby's momma and he loves da kids and all that shit w00t w00t I payed him $10 to eat my boogers.

[fitz]

Byron-

Post a "Michael Moore beats his baby's mothers" and see if Baby Mommas come out in his defense. Also, I decided to do a takeoff of that Maddox post and rip on movies that everyone thinks are good. Look for it on my website soon. Finally, e-mail me about the pageant rap show. I was thinking I would just swing by your place, but I don't know the address. Morty isn't going anymore, I think Elliott or Jason might go though.

[Fitz]

As a side note, even though I dislike Michael Moore, he is one of my favorite people at the moment, for he alone is responsible for keeping "White Chicks" from debuting at #1. And really, I'm happy to see a reasonably intelligent film at #1.

[noixe]

yodel at me if yall want to meet up before that Pageant show. djskinnyf at yahoo dot com.

[Alyn]

Fitz:

That was a wonderful one-liner.

I caught the movie over the weekend.

It was pretty good, but can't be called a documentary. Moore clearly had an agenda, and goes about finding "facts" to support the conclusion he wanted to prove in the movie.

It reveals some "interesting" supposed facts about AOL and Citibank's ties to the Saudis, as well as other things. He also goes into the whole Bush/oil and Iraq/contracting companies thing. Any mention of democrats ties to Iraq contracts is not really covered (like the fine Senator from Cali. whose husband is doing a ton of work related to Iraq).

It was entertaining, and, if more even-handed, could have helped some of the dummies, who are diehard democrats, think twice about their blind support for the party: one of the democratic Congressmen from Michigan admits on camera that most members (essentially) didn't, and DON'T read bills before they vote on them (scary, isn't it?).

He also shows *a few* other democrats in a bad light -- it was as if he wanted to (barely) seem objective by putting a few clips in the movie which made democrats look bad. I guess he was trying to maintain a "documentary" or (somewhat) "fair" label for the movie.

Bush is made to look arrogant throughout the movie. This was made easier by Bush's own words at several appearances/press conferences.

The movie was pretty entertaining and somewhat disturbing (especially the images of U.S. soilders in Iraq). I doubt it will change anyone's mind though.

[sleepnotwork]

>that he was responsible for them, and that they >would continue, he didn't really have anything >to do with them, so it was all a dream? just an >april fool's joke?

What an unbelievably ignorant thing to say. Noone's saying Osama didn't do it, we just think that maybe, just maybe, it would be nice to have it proven. Maybe they could reassign some of the dudes who are so busy not finding him.

>Moore clearly had an agenda, and goes about >finding "facts" to support the conclusion he >wanted to prove in the movie.

Yeah, and he finds a shitload of facts. Does putting "facts" in little quotes and saying it's "not a documentary" make it easier for you to ignore the overwhelming evidence that your president is a liar and a cheat?

>one of the democratic Congressmen from Michigan >admits on camera that most members (essentially) >didn't, and DON'T read bills before they vote on >them (scary, isn't it?).

Dude, that you consider this a legitimate argument against the Democrats is what's scary. It's a problem with government as a whole, and more importantly the above comment was made in the context of the guy pointing out that the Patriot Act was printed late at night, distributed and railroaded through congress in less than 24 hours, specifically so that noone had time to read it. Tell me again how that's a mark against the Dems (except insofar as they didn't see through the bullshit at the time)?

[Alyn]

>that he was responsible for them, and that they >would continue, he didn't really have anything >to do with them, so it was all a dream? just an >april fool's joke?

Does anyone understand these statement/fragments from sleenotwork? I don't, so no response.

You're no doubt a diehard democrat. It's pretty scary that you believe your "team" is full of honest, good, and "righteous" folks who can only do good for the country. In fact, they are probably more like the republicans than you care to know...

My issue is not so much about Moore, as it is about his "truth seeker" label. He claims he's attempting to have Bush lose the election. He *also* claims he doesn't like Kerry, as well as both the republican AND democratic party -- his words, not mine.

Fine. My only question for Moore is, where was he during the last administration?

Maybe he could have looked into the whole corporate corruption thing and saved some Americans from losing so much money -- like Clinton and Enron's relationship; Al Gore's ties to "big oil".

If he had focused his "lens of truth" on the prior adminstration (in some way), maybe he could have helped prevent the 90's from being a financially disasterous decade where lots of large companies stole, cheated, cooked the books, and scammed their way to bringing about the "record prosperity of the 90's."

While his movie is a decent attempt at helping make government accountable to the public, Moore's blatant bias will prevent him from being seen by objective folks as anything other than a party hack (despite his claims to the contrary).

[Matt]

First let me say that I have great respect for Hitchens even though I don't always agree with him. He is not afraid to take on people who the mainstream media have deemed untouchable - Mother Theresa, for example. Plus there are not many people who are as eloquent and who have the depth of knowledge that he has. There is a reason that Moore won't debate Hitchens - it's because he would lose and lose badly, regardless of the issues involved.

That said, I think his review of Fahrenheit 9/11 is a bit heavy handed, but I think his point about Moore wanting to have it all ways is a valid one. Does anyone really know where Moore stands on most of these issues other than he's anti-Bush on almost every one of them? Has anyone heard any proposal from Moore as to how we should fight terrorism other than "stop being afraid" (I agree with this, at least)? There's a big difference between pointing out a problem and offering a legitimate, workable solution. And that's not to say I agree with the way things are currently being handled, because I don't.

[sleepnotwork]

Alyn, the fragments are quotes. That's what those little arrow thingys indicate - they came out looking crappy, my bad.

I by no means believe the Democrats to be the party of virtue - they've done a lot of the same shit, but I do believe they're less corrupt than the Republicans. It's a matter of degree, not kind, but as we've seen degree does matter. And while we're at it, the fact that two people commit a murder doesn't make either of them innocent.

You're trying to pin Enron on Clinton? The Democrats are dirty, but that particular boondogle was the result of Republican corporate "deregulation." I'll point you towards Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" for more information on it.

I think that most Democratic supporters are very conscious of the shortcomings of the party, and many are making a "lesser of two evils" choice. That we're conscious of these difficulties is a strength, not a weakness.

[Alyn]

I am well aware of Palast's work, as well as other Pacifica Radio illuminaries.

I'm afraid Greg refuses to report on Clinton's relationship with Enron and Clinton's attempts to get help land the company sweetheart deals with foreign countries.

Even Clinton's deceased Sec. of Commerce, Ron Brown, and Labor Secretary, Hazel O'Leary, were closely tied to Enron -- they took trips with Ken Lay numerous times to India, not to mention, getting him 400 million dollars in fed. loans.

Hmmm... maybe there is something to be said for the claim that the media is biased; how else could the Clinton-Enron connection escape scrutiny?

If you listen to Pacifica and know Palast you're better informed that most, but, unfortunately, Greg can't be fully trusted -- that is, you only get *half* the story with him (although what he *does* choose to report on is quite thorough).

[Fitz]

Do people still give a shit about Clinton?

[Alyn]

When Clinton leaves the U.S. public the hell alone, and stops trying to constantly put himself in the spotlight, maybe he'll be left alone.

As long as he keeps pontificating on what Bush is doing and giving his opinion world events -- he's fair game.

[Jam Master Jyeah]

>What an unbelievably ignorant thing to say. Noone's saying Osama didn't do it, we just think that maybe, just maybe, it would be nice to have it proven. Maybe they could reassign some of the dudes who are so busy not finding him.

first of all, it's called sarcasm, you might want to try it sometime. secondly, have it proven? did you even read what I said? my point was that he FUCKING SAID HE DID IT and WHY he did it. that's not proof? I understand you mean you would like evidence other than his statement which ties him to organizing this whole mess in some way, but please, let's not be babies.

>Yeah, and he finds a shitload of facts. Does putting "facts" in little quotes and saying it's "not a documentary" make it easier for you to ignore the overwhelming evidence that your president is a liar and a cheat?

does putting words in my mouth and misquoting me (a la Michael Moore) make it easier to argue against me? when did I ever say it was "not a documentary"? is this a "fact" like all the ones Michael Moore "finds"? if you actually read what I posted, rather than grouping me with all of the other card-carrying republicans who come on here to defend their savior Bush and assuming I am one of them, I said that it "IS A DOCUMENTARY" (I'm not that dumb, all movies are biased, even documentaries, if you want something neutral, go to the woods and watch nature) but my point was that it is SIMILAR to Triumph of the Will, as I explained and will not re-explain because I already fucking typed it once.

Furthermore, I am sure Michael Moore uses plenty of facts, but be careful - just because he says it or puts it in a movie does not make it a fact (my point). are you that ignorant to think everything on paper, TV, or film is fact (I am not saying you are and assuming/hoping you are not)? words can be twisted, just as you added that little "quote" that is not from me stating "is not a documentary." I am skeptical of anything that does not come straight from the source, and even then I am still skeptical (people are fucking crooked liars and are not to be trusted, especially politicians). For someone who seems to be in favor of things that are factually proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it seems contradictory to accept something someone says as true just because they said so.

Anyways, like I said in my first post (which you obviously didn't read), I could care less whether or not each and every statement in that film is fact or not (I am never going to see it), I just was defending my stupid joke about Triumph of the Will...

[ollie]

Hitchens is a pompous jackass. i critiqued his critique too: http://www.yeekyakairforce.com/ollie_byrd_is_the_moth/blogger.html

[sleepnotwork]

Jyeah, I apologize for misquoting you. You're right, I jumped to a conclusion - the "not a documentary" thing has just become such a fucking mantra with people opposed to Moore that I practically hear it before it's said. Gah - rereading your post, I really fucking mangled your intentions with the "facts" thing, too. I just made myself look like a pretty big jackass . . . damn. I swear I'm not an idiot most of the time.

[Jam Master Jyeah]

yeah and don't you mother fucking forget it. just kidding - no harm no foul. i'm sure you can find my many instances of being a jackass posts back.

[Awww Damn]

Yeah, nice glamour pose with the cigarette and popped collar trenchcoat. I find journalists who look like Hudson Hawk to be the most credible source for hard news.

Anyway, I saw this wanker on Scarborough Country tonight. There was a banner that said "Michael Moore Hates America?" flowing at the bottom of the screen and Hitchens said that the film applauded the deaths of US Soldiers and Iraqis while Scarborough continually gave Hitchens the verbal equavalant of a pumping fist throughout his nonsensical tirade. Even the smartest conservatives I know wouldn't resort to the transparent "america-hater" smokescreen. Gotta love that crazy liberal media!

[Lynne]

Whoever said the Democrats were less "corrupt than the Republicans" must have forgotten or overlooked the Clinton scandal. What about that whas UNcorrupt?

[Awww Damn]

Are you insinuating that being a philanderer is worse than something like Iran Contra? Please elucidate for me.

[the quarterwit]

Awww Damn, I guess you didn't get the memo that presidential hummers rank higher on the politically corrupt scale than, say, watergate or iran contra. duh!

regarding "michael moore hates america": what is the deal? is that a new documentary about michael moore's documentaries?? (so meta!)

[Jam Master Jyeah]

Michael Moore Hates America is a documentary that supposedly explores the genre of documentary while searching for "the American Dream" to see whether or not Moore's portrayal of America is indeed true (the filmmaker's goal is to present a different, opposite portrayal). Also, throughout the film he apparently keeps trying to get an interview with the big guy, but is never able to (kind of like Roger & Me), leading to an ironic, if not hypocritical, situation.

[the quarterwit]

jam master: thanks, got it. have you seen it? if so: thoughts?

[Jam Master Jyeah]

no I haven't, it has yet to be released. if you want more info check out the website:

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

[Tim Blake]

There is a refutation of Unfairenheit 9/11 provided here.

http://www.angeltowns2.com/members/unfairenheit/

[ollie]

5 criticisms against the pompous hitchens:
http://www.yeekyakairforce.com/ollie_byrd_is_the_moth/2004/07/les-tours-de-force-contra-christopher.html

[Stephen Birmingham]

Another refutation of Hitchens' intoxicating invective can be found here:

"Christopher Hitchens vs. Michael Moore"

http://www.medialens.org/PHPBB2/viewtopic.php?t=676

[Stephen Birmingham]

Scratch the above message. I have since moved the point-by-point rebuttal of Hitchens' review to the following location:

http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/f911/hitch-moore.htm

Christopher Hitchens vs. Michael Moore

[Nas]

Fuck that fat socialist anti-American pigfucker Michael Moore, I'll cap that bitch.

[tiberseptim]

You're all a bunch of yo-yos. Shut up, ya yo-yos.