(Cont/... sorry its proving so long)
Quote: "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."
He's assuming a little too much, I can't say how the press. michael moore or anyone would react to anything, people often surprise me. I don't see where Hitchins got his wonderful "Whatif" crystal ball from, however it sure helps his essay. Such a point is conjective and defies argument. It could have happened this way or could have another.
Many may well say
Quote: "that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance,"
, but Moore
didn't. He presented us with a few theories as too what must Bush have been thinking but he doesn't make that point. Hitchins is now arguing with points that Moore
never even made.
Quote: "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. "
Its difficult to argue that Saddam was a nice guy, because of course he wasn't. Its difficult to argue that Iraq was a nice place to live before, because again I doubt it was. It's also difficult to make the assertion that this is what moore was getting at.
I think that Hitchins has missed the point - I think how I felt seeing the kites etc and I felt these are people just like us, I did not think "that sure looks a nice place to live - a positive paradise". How would you? The footage showed the happy normal kids, but a cursory glance at the devastated landscape all around them shows that this cannot have been Moores point.
The cutting is deliberately done for dramatic effect, sure, but then so what? The cutting means much less than how we are anchored to the meaning that moore was getting at.
Quote: "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.)"
Are we looking at Moore's film or Moore himself? The first sentance is totally irrelevant to the point (and a nasty rhetorical tactic - "if you can't attack the viewpoint, then attack the man")
If the
Quote: ""insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged"
, I didn't see it and I wouldn't like to try and prove it was Moores intention. This is a subjective point, and I wouldn't try to argue it one way or another.
As for the argument about Saddams nastiness - its a common prowar argument and been mentioned so many times that Moore didn't feel he needed to - he was making the antiwar case, so has no need to bring it into the argument, unless he planned to refute it. Since Saddams utter horribleness is not the question (or, indeed, in doubt) and real question is "Is War a justified response to it? Are there no other means?", I will leave it there as it is part of a broader discussion.
Quote: "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."
Ok, lets break the next bit up into easy stages. My reading of Moore is that there was no state sponsored action that was aimed at the USA and that the point is a minor one and pretty much irrelevant to Moores argument, but lets take a gander at the examples Hitchins cites:
Quote: "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 London was for many years the official home address for General Pinochet... Such a thing proves nothing, and it certainly does not prove the state the criminal lives in condones or approves of the crimes he/she has committed. Many criminals live here and in America - if an American criminal kills a Brit, we do not assume that it is part of USA plot against the UK.
Quote: "Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer."
See above, unless Hitchins provides actual proof of state involvement in those "operations". Ah, he hasn't, well strike 2 then.
Quote: "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."
Neither of these cases are directed agression against the USA. In the first case, any Americans killed were not the target, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the other case, they weren't killed, and it strikes me that its difficult to argue whether or not this was directed agression at American citizens as those hostages could have easily been Brits/ Aussies etc... and a consequence of the wider context of the Kuwait operations.
Quote: "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.)"
Again, tricky to argue this, because you can easily debate whether or not the target is the country or the man. Directed agression, sure. Directed aggression against the US, not so sure.
Quote: "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."
Its true enough, however, in the context of foreign planes patrolling your skies and occasionally bombing you (or allowing the turks to bomb you) (if pressed, I'll find evidence, theres enough of it about), might you feel a little hostile to the foreigners?
Quote: "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."
Again, back into the realms of whether this was an Iraqi state backed action or not. Hitchins offers us no proof either way.
Quote: "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."
Ok, not exactly a specific threat. Sure, a stupid move on Saddams part, but doesn't quite fall into the category of what we are looking for.
Quote: "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."
Very interesting one this. Hutchins now is citing a case where Iraq is not even threatening the USA! The obvious target of Saddam's spite was Isreal, and he shared that in common with quite a few of the counties in that region.
Quote: "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."
See above - if it was Iraq sponsored - lets see the proof.
Quote: "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.)"
Most of the countries in the region have made repeated efforts to obtain these kinds of weapons and Saddam is certainly not unique in this. The reason seems obvious that by having nuclear weapons pretty much guarantees you will not be attacked by western countries and neighbouring countries (for years most western countries have maintained nuclear weapons on the grounds that they are a deterrant - is the argument ok for us and not for them?).
Quote: "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.""
Thanks for intrepreting the film for us, but wrong again. "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." is obviously NOT what Moore is saying - however, replace the word "problem" with the words "immenent and present threat" and you get closer to the obvious point of what Moore was saying. Hitchins is trying to twist the film, but its pretty obvious.
Quote: "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."
No, actually the implication is that clear and obvious foreign threats were ignored in the wake of 9/11, but since then they have taken it as an opportunity to tighten the grip on the people with the Patriot act and cause a lot of fear by constantly adjusting the terror levels.
Quote: "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."
What? No, he doesn't! He just points out the disparity in that one of the few things which has been used in the past to threaten an aircraft is perfectly legal, presumably in order to prove the point that the US government are not really all that bothered about National Security - especially when lobbied by powerful people, such as the tobacco industry.
The next paragraph, I've already covered these issues. Influence is NOT the same as control.
The following paragraph about the source of the soldiers - Hitchin again raises his afghanistan points - waffles incoherently for a bit. Then talks about the soldiers coming from poor families issue.
Here, Hitchins does a major and obvious twisting of Moores words, which I'll go into if you wish, but am tired and think that its obvious.
Quote: "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."
Strikes me as an obvious and cheap attack on the man (which deliberately misquotes him), not the film.
The next para is utterly irrelevant as Hitchins delves further into personal attacks.
The next para is a challenge to Moore, which is a bit cheap.
With the next paragraph, he goes back to expressing his opinions, but doesn't actually pick up on points raised.
And the last few paragraphs are somewhat floral examples of solid opinion in place of fact and can be ignored.
Phew.
Sorry, if I glossed over a few paras, was getting tired. If I've missed or failed to answer any points, please let me know and I'll rectify that, its not deliberate.
